Coordination and Supplementation PDF

15
Coordination and
supplementation
Rodney Huddleston
John Payne
Peter Peterson
1 The structure of coordinate constructions 1275

1.1 Coordinations, coordinates, and coordinators 1275
1.2 Layered coordination (Kim and either Pat or Alex) 1278
1.3 Syntactic constituency and semantic scope 1280
1.3.1 Clausal and subclausal coordination 1280
1.3.2 Joint coordination (Kim and Pat are a happy couple) 1281
1.3.3 NPs with discrete set interpretations (new and second-hand books) 1283
1.3.4 Constituent structure and scope ambiguities (long poems and essays) 1285
1.4 Order of coordinates 1287
2 Coordinators and related linking items 1289
2.1 Properties of prototypical coordinators 1289
2.2 And and or 1293
2.2.1 Logical conjunction and disjunction 1293
2.2.2 And and or in combination with negation 1298
2.2.3 Asymmetric constructions, i: and (He got up and had breakfast, etc.) 1299
2.2.4 Asymmetric constructions, ii: or (Hurry up or we’ll be late, etc.) 1303
2.2.5 Coordinator-marked reduplication (louder and louder, dozens and dozens) 1304
2.3 Both and either 1305
2.4 Neither and nor 1308
2.5 But 1310
2.6 Not 1313
2.7 Not only 1314
2.8 Expressions based on comparison (as well as, rather than, etc.) 1315
2.9 Expressions of addition, inclusion, etc. (including, instead of , plus, etc.) 1318
2.10 Connective adverbs (so, yet, however, etc.) 1319
2.11 For, only, and resultative so + that 1321
3 The range of coordination: what can be coordinated with what 1323
3.1 Conditions on the distribution and form of coordinations 1323
3.2 Coordination of unlike categories 1326
3.3 Coordination of grammaticised words 1329
3.4 Coordination and genitives 1330
3.5 Coordination of clause types 1332
3.6 Level of coordination 1334
4 Non-basic coordination 1336
4.1 Expansion of coordinates by modifiers (the guests and indeed his family too) 1336
4.2 Gapped coordination (Kim is an engineer and Pat a barrister) 1337
1273
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:33:52, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.016
1274
4.3 Right nonce-constituent coordination (I gave $ 10 to Kim and $ 5 to Pat) 1341

4.4 Delayed right constituent coordination (knew of but never mentioned my work) 1343
4.5 End-attachment coordination (They had found Kim guilty, but not Pat) 1345
4.6 Coordination as evidence for constituent structure 1348
5 Supplementation 1350
5.1 General properties of supplementation 1350
5.2 The form of supplements 1356
1275
The preceding chapters have been concerned with constructions which consist of a head
element, alone or accompanied by one or more dependents. In this chapter we turn
to two types of non-headed construction, namely coordination and supplementation.
Compare:
[1] i I left the room and Pat followed me. [coordination]
ii The tourists – most of them exhausted – got into the bus. [supplementation]
Construction [i] is non-headed because the two underlined constituents are of equal
syntactic status: we cannot say that one is head and the other dependent. Construc-
tion [ii] is not so clearly distinct from a headed construction: the difference is that the
underlined constituent is not tightly integrated into the syntactic structure. We treat it
therefore as a supplement rather than as a dependent (such as we have in The exhausted
tourists got into the bus). We look in detail at coordination in §§1–4, and then turn more
briefly to supplementation in §5.
1 The structure of coordinate constructions
1.1 Coordinations, coordinates, and coordinators

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 :
[2] i [Kim and Pat] speak excellent French. [NP-coordination]
ii He can see you [this afternoon or on Tuesday]. [NP/PP-coordination]
The equality of the coordinates is reflected in the fact that usually either of them could
stand alone in place of the whole coordination (with adjustment of agreement features
where necessary): Kim speaks excellent French ; Pat speaks excellent French.1 A second
indication of the equality of the coordinates is that in the most straightforward cases we
can reverse their order without significant effect on structure or meaning: Pat and Kim
speak excellent French ; He can see you on Tuesday or this afternoon.
Coordination as a non-headed construction

Coordination contrasts with subordination, where the elements are of unequal status.
In subordination one element is head, the other(s) dependent, but precisely because
1
In cases like Kim and Pat [are a happy couple], such replacement is not possible, but the coordinates are again
of equal status in that neither can replace the whole: see §1.3.2.
1276 Chapter 15 Coordination and supplementation
coordinates are of equal status the functions of head and dependent are not applicable
to coordination. We therefore refer to Kim and Pat as an NP-coordination, not an NP:
it is functionally like an NP but does not have the structure of one. Examples like [2ii]
show, moreover, that the coordinates do not have to be of the same syntactic category, this
afternoon being an NP, on Tuesday a PP. The whole cannot belong to either one of these
categories, and we analyse it therefore as an NP/PP-coordination, i.e. a coordination of
an NP and a PP.
Contrasting structures
The examples in [3] contain two coordinates and one coordinator, but there are other
possibilities. We have three contrasts of structure to note.
(a) Binary vs multiple coordination
There can be more than two coordinates – in which case we speak of multiple coordi-
nation in contrast to binary coordination, with just two:
[3] i Kim wrote a letter and Ed watched TV. [binary coordination]
ii She wants to live [in Sydney, in London, or in Paris]. [multiple coordination]
(b) Syndetic vs asyndetic coordination
Although the construction is usually marked by a coordinator, it does not have to be; the
coordination is said to be syndetic when it is overtly marked in this way, and asyndetic
when it is not:
[4] i He invited [all his colleagues and all his students]. [syndetic]
ii He invited [all his colleagues, all his students]. [asyndetic]
With multiple coordination we have two subtypes of syndetic coordination:
[5] i He can see you on [Monday, Tuesday, or Friday]. [simple-syndetic]
ii He can see you on [Monday or Tuesday or Friday]. [polysyndetic]
Example [i] has or marking just the final coordinate, whereas in [ii] it marks all except
the first. These are the only possibilities even when we have more than three coordinates:
all medial coordinates (those which are neither initial nor final) must be treated alike,
either all unmarked (on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, or Friday) or else all marked (on
Monday or Tuesday or Thursday or Friday) – not, for example, ∗on Monday or Tuesday,
Thursday or Friday.
(c) Correlative vs non-correlative coordination
All syndetic coordination has a marker before the final coordinate; the initial coordinate
may also be marked, by a determinative that is correlative (paired) with the one marking
the final coordinate. Both correlates with and, either with or, and so on (see §2.3).
[6] i a. He invited [both his father and his uncle]. [correlative]
b. He invited [his father and his uncle]. [non-correlative]
ii a. He can see you [either on Monday or on Tuesday]. [correlative]
b. He can see you [on Monday or on Tuesday]. [non-correlative]
Either can appear in multiple coordination, and we then find again the contrast between
simple-syndetic either on Monday, on Tuesday, or on Friday and polysyndetic either on
Monday or on Tuesday or on Friday.
§ 1.1 Coordinations, coordinates, and coordinators 1277
The most usual pattern has a single coordinator located before the final coordi-
nate; the extra elements in correlative and polysyndetic structures emphasise the co-
ordinative relation (but see also §2.3), while the absence of a marker in asyndetic
coordination makes this not always clearly distinguishable from non-coordinative
constructions.
Place of coordinators in the constituent structure

From a semantic point of view a coordinator expresses the relation between the co-
ordinates, but syntactically it belongs with the coordinate that follows it (i.e. they
form a constituent together), so that the structure for Kim and Pat will be as in [7]:
[7] NP-coordination
Coordinate1: Coordinate2:
NP NP
Marker: Coordinate2:
Coordinator NP
Kim and Pat
The numerical subscripts indicate the sequential order of the coordinates: as we have
said, they are of equal syntactic status, and this is reflected in the fact that they are not
differentiated in terms of syntactic function, but only in terms of their linear position.
There are three reasons for saying that the coordinator forms a syntactic constituent with the
coordinate that follows:
(a) Variable position of second coordinate
Under certain conditions it is possible to vary the position of the second coordinate in a
binary coordination (cf. §4.5). Compare:
[8] i a. They allowed the others but not me a second chance.
b. They allowed the others a second chance but not me.
ii a. Did the boss or her secretary tell you that?
b. Did the boss tell you that or her secretary?
In both versions the coordinator is located next to its coordinate: what varies is the position
of but not me and or her secretary, which indicates that each of these forms a unit.
(b) Sentence-initial and , or, but
Such coordinators as and, or, and but can occur in sentence-initial position. For example,
speaker A might say, She thoroughly enjoyed it, and B then add, And so did her mother. It is
clear that and here forms a unit with so did her mother.
(c) Prosody and punctuation
The natural intonation break is before the coordinator, not after. This is particularly clear in
polysyndetic and correlative coordination. A natural reading of He invited his brother and his
sister and his mother, for example, will have a prosodic break before each and : He invited his
brother |and his sister |and his mother. Similarly with writing: if punctuation is used between
the coordinates, it occurs in these same places.
Bare and expanded coordinates

In [7] we have generalised the functional term ‘coordinate’ so as to have it apply not only
to Pat but also to the larger element and Pat ; where it is necessary to make clear which
is intended, we use bare coordinate for Pat itself and expanded coordinate for and Pat.
We also allow for an expanded coordinate to contain various modifiers in addition to (or
instead of) a coordinator – modifiers like too, as well, else, and so on. The structure for the
coordination in He offended the guests and indeed his family too will therefore be as in [9].
[9]
NP-coordination
NP NP
Marker: Modifier: Coordinate2: Modifier:

Coordinator Adv NP Adv
the guests and indeed his family too
The bare coordinates are the guests and his family (just as they are in He invited the guests
and his family), but his family is expanded by the modifiers indeed and too, as well as by
the marker and. (See §4.1 for fuller discussion of this kind of expansion.)2
1.2 Layered coordination (Kim and either Pat or Alex)

A coordination can function as a coordinate within a larger one, resulting in what we
call a layered coordination:
[10] i We should invite [Kim and either Pat or Alex].
ii I tried to persuade him and so did Kim, but he was quite inflexible.
The underlining marks the lower coordination. In [i] the NP-coordination either Pat or
Alex is coordinated with Kim to form the larger NP-coordination enclosed in brackets,
whose structure is as follows:
[11]
NP-coordination
NP NP-coordination
Marker: Coordinate2:
Coordinator NP-coordination
NP NP
Marker: Coordinate1: Marker: Coordinate2:

Determinative NP Coordinator NP
Kim and either Pat or Alex
2
Formal grammar often uses ‘conjunction’ in place of ‘coordination’, but we see no reason to change the tra-
ditional term, which contrasts transparently with ‘subordination’. ‘Conjunction’ is in any case an unfortunate
§ 1.2 Layered coordination 1279
Similarly in [10ii]: the underlined sequence is a clause-coordination which realises the

first coordinate in a larger clause-coordination that forms the whole sentence. But is the
coordinator at the upper layer, and at the lower.
The possibility of layering means that with three bare coordinates we can in principle
have three contrasting structures, as shown in the following simplified representations:
[12] a. Coordination b. Coordination c. Coordination
Coord1 Coord2 Coord1 Coord2 Coord1 Coord2 Coord3
Coord1 Coord2 Coord1 Coord2
egg and bacon or stew cakes and tea or coffee pork, beef, or lamb
The word sequences in [a] and [b] are ambiguous, but the interpretations represented
in the diagrams are the natural ones. In [a] the choice (or) is between egg and bacon on
the one hand, stew on the other, whereas in [b] the choice is between tea and coffee. The
second layer of coordination is on the left in [a], and on the right in [b], whereas in [c]
there is only a single layer.
In [10] and [12a–b] it is immediately clear that there is layering because of the contrast-
ing coordinators: and vs but or and vs or. Within any single coordination the coordinators
must match: all non-initial ones must be identical and any initial markers must correlate
with the non-initial ones, both with and, either with or, etc. Moreover, as we noted
above in introducing polysyndetic coordination, if any medial coordinate is marked by
a coordinator, all must be – which means that while [13i] may be a single coordination
[13ii] cannot be:
[13] i He invited [Kim and Tom and Pat and your parents].
ii He invited [Kim, Tom and Pat, and your parents].
In [ii] we have four bare coordinates but only two coordinators, so that there must
be layering. There are two possible structures: the first layer has either two coordinates
([Kim, Tom and Pat] + [your parents]) or three ([Kim] + [Tom and Pat] + [your parents]).
Example [i] has no grammatical marking of layering, but it does not exclude a layered
interpretation and indeed allows numerous different ones ([Kim and Tom] + [Pat] +
[your parents]; [Kim] + [Tom and Pat] + [your parents]; and so on) – the layering in this
case would have to be signalled purely by prosody or punctuation.
Scope
In [12a] (egg and bacon or stew) we say that or has scope over and, in that the and-relation
holds within one of the coordinates linked by or. Scope is a semantic concept, but in
simple examples like this it is reflected straightforwardly in the syntactic structure: or is
a marker at the upper layer of coordination, and at the lower layer. An alternative type
of formulation we shall use is to say that or has wide scope relative to and – or that and
choice because this term is used in logic for a relation corresponding closely to just one type of coordination,
that marked by and as opposed to or (or-coordination corresponding in turn to logical disjunction) – see §2.2.1
below. In traditional grammar, moreover, ‘conjunction’ is used for a class of words used in both coordinative
and subordinative constructions. ‘Coordinate’ is not widely used in traditional grammar, and for this concept
formal grammar almost invariably uses ‘conjunct’.
has narrow scope relative to or. In [12b] (cakes and tea or coffee), of course, the scope
relations are reversed: here and has scope over or.
1.3 Syntactic constituency and semantic scope

1.3.1 Clausal and subclausal coordination
In clausal coordination the bare coordinates are full main clauses; other cases we refer
to as subclausal coordination.
Semantic equivalence
In the absence of special factors, a subclausal coordination is semantically equivalent to
the corresponding clausal coordination:
[14] i a. There is a copy [on the desk and in the top drawer].
b. They arrived [on [Tuesday or Wednesday]. [subclausal]
c. He told me [who she was but not what she wanted ].
ii a. There is a copy on the desk and there is a copy in the top drawer.
b. They arrived on Tuesday or they arrived on Wednesday. [clausal]
c. He told me who she was but he didn’t tell me what she wanted.
Example [ia] is equivalent to [iia], and similarly for the other pairs. Note that coordi-
nation of subordinate clauses, as in [ic], is subsumed under subclausal coordination:
the coordinates, although themselves clauses, are nevertheless constituents of the main
clause just as much as the coordinates of [ia–b], and in that sense are subclausal.
Given this equivalence, we will say that the semantic scope of the coordinator is the
same in both cases. So although the coordination is syntactically subclausal in [14i] the
semantic scope of the coordinator extends over the whole clause, just as it does in [ii].
It can also be convenient to speak of [i] as a reduction of [ii], or of [ii] as an expansion
of [i], with the understanding that this does not imply that [i] is syntactically derived by
ellipsis from [ii].
Non-equivalence
There are also numerous cases where corresponding subclausal and clausal coordinations
are not semantically equivalent. A typical example is found in:
[15] i One candidate was [very young and very energetic]. [subclausal]
ii One candidate was very young and one candidate was very energetic. [clausal]
In [i] there is a single candidate with two properties, whereas [ii] implicates that the
one who was very young and the one who was very energetic were different candidates.
Again we will talk in terms of semantic scope: in [ii] and has scope over the determiner
one, so that a referent for one candidate is selected independently in the two coordinates.
But in [i] one has scope over and, so that the two properties are predicated of the same
candidate. Where the coordination does not have scope over the whole clause we say
that it has narrow scope, and it is precisely when subclausal coordination has narrow
scope that it is not equivalent to clausal coordination.
§ 1.3.2 Joint coordination 1281
Further examples of narrow scope coordination are given in:

[16] i No one [treats me like that and gets away with it].
ii Nothing is wrong with [the amplifier or the tuner].
iii Who [lives in college and has a car]?
iv Did she [go to the meeting and make her report]?
v The [first and most impressive] speaker was from Wales.
vi She’d like [a cricket bat or a tennis racquet] for her birthday.
Example [i] doesn’t say that no one treats me like that – but that no one gets away
with it if they do. And [ii] is quite different from Nothing is wrong with the amplifier or
nothing is wrong with the tuner, for the meaning is “Nothing is wrong with the amplifier
and nothing is wrong with the tuner”. These two illustrate one of the most frequent
cases where scope factors prevent expansion: the case where the coordinator is within
the scope of a negative (to be discussed in §2.2.2). In [iii] interrogative who similarly
has scope over and : it is a single question asking about a set of people combining two
properties, whereas the clausal coordination Who lives in college and who has a car? is
two questions, asking about two sets of people. Example [iv] likewise expresses a single
question as to whether she both went to the meeting and made a report, whereas Did
she go to the meeting and did she make her report? is two questions about two separate
events. In [v] and falls within the scope of the definite article the, so that there is a single
speaker with the twin properties of being first and being the most impressive. Finally,
the salient interpretation of [vi] has or falling within the scope of would like: she is as it
were offering a choice, she would be happy with either a cricket bat or a tennis racquet.3
1.3.2 Joint coordination (Kim and Pat are a happy couple)

A special case of narrow scope coordination is joint coordination, which contrasts with
the default distributive coordination:
[17] i Kim and Pat know Greek. [distributive]
ii Kim and Pat are a happy couple. [joint]
Example [i] is equivalent to Kim knows Greek and Pat knows Greek, but if we attempt
to expand [ii] in the same way the result is incoherent: ∗Kim is a happy couple and
Pat is a happy couple. The difference is that knowing Greek applies to Kim and Pat
distributively, i.e. individually or separately, but being a happy couple does not – it is
Kim and Pat together, jointly, who are a happy couple (cf. Ch. 5, §5.1).
Further examples of joint coordination like [ii] are:
[18] i Kim and Pat are two of his best friends.
ii Kim and Pat disliked each other.
iii Kim and Pat went to Bonn and Paris respectively.
Example [i] is like [17ii] in that the coordination is within the scope of the predicative
complement: we must first form a set consisting of Kim and Pat before we can assign
the properties “a happy couple” and “two of his best friends”. In [18ii] the coordination
is within the scope of each other (dislike each other can only apply to a plural set) and
3
Example [16vi] also has a less likely interpretation where or has scope over would like, and in this case it is
equivalent to the clausal coordination She’d like a cricket bat for her birthday or she’d like a tennis racquet for her
birthday (i.e. I’m not saying which she would like, with the implicature that I don’t know).
in [iii] both coordinations are within the scope of respectively (hence the incoherence of
∗
Kim and Pat went to Bonn respectively and ∗Kim went to Bonn and Paris respectively).
Ambiguity between distributive and joint coordination

Examples like the following allow both kinds of interpretation:
[19] i Kim and Pat are in love.
ii Kim and Pat are studying law and economics.
iii Kim and Pat told me they were going to New York.
The distributive interpretation of [i] is equivalent to the clausal coordination Kim is in
love and Pat is in love, while the joint interpretation is equivalent to Kim and Pat are in
love with each other : the reciprocal relation can be implicit. And the same applies to the
respectively relation, so that [ii] has not only the distributive reading “Kim is studying
law and economics, and Pat is studying law and economics”, but also the joint one “Kim
and Pat are studying law and economics respectively”. In the distributive interpretation
of [iii] there were two acts of telling, one performed by Kim, the other by Pat, whereas
in the joint reading there was a single act of telling. This might have been in a letter from
the two of them, but it could also be that in fact just one of them actually said this to
me: if they were both engaged in the conversation it would be perfectly reasonable to
attribute the information to the two of them jointly.
Distinctive grammatical features of joint coordination

Joint coordination differs from other kinds of coordination in the following respects:
(a) Restriction to and
Joint coordination virtually requires and as coordinator:4
[20] i Kim or Pat will be going to Bonn. [distributive]
ii ∗Kim or Pat will be going to Bonn and Paris respectively. [joint]
(b) Exclusion of correlative both
For most speakers at least, both is not permitted in joint coordination:
[21] i Both Kim and Pat are friends of his. [distributive]
ii ∗Both Kim and Pat are two of his best friends. [joint]
(c) No expansion by modifier

And cannot be accompanied by any modifiers to the coordination, such as too, as well,
especially, probably, etc.:
[22] i Kim and probably Pat too resented your intervention. [distributive]
ii ∗Kim and probably Pat too disliked each other. [joint]
The ambiguity of [19i–ii] is resolved in favour of a distributive interpretation if they
are amended in any of these respects: Kim or Pat had been in love ; Both Kim and Pat had
been in love ; Kim and probably Pat too had been in love. But the restrictions do not apply
to the narrow scope coordinations cited in §1.3.1: [15i], for example, can be manipulated
to give One of the candidates was very young and probably very energetic too ; One of the
candidates was both very young and very energetic ; One of the candidates was very young
but very energetic. Note also the contrast between reflexive and reciprocal pronouns, at
4
The qualification ‘virtually’ is needed because or is marginally possible in a narrow range of cases when the
predicate contains some such word as choice : Hamburgers or sausages is a miserable choice to have to make.
§ 1.3.3 NPs with discrete set interpretations 1283
least with respect to correlative both:

[23] i Both Kim and Pat had hurt themselves. [reflexive: distributive]
ii ∗Both Kim and Pat had hurt each other. [reciprocal: joint]
Example [i] is not strictly expandable (we can have Kim had hurt herself and Pat had hurt
himself or the like, but this involves changing the pronoun and incorporating informa-
tion about their sex that is not encoded in [i]). It is for such reasons that we prefer to
contrast ‘joint’ with ‘distributive’ rather than ‘separable’: [i] doesn’t belong to the joint
construction, but it is not separable in the sense of involving wide scope coordination.
Verb agreement
In addition to the above, there is a fourth grammatical property, singular agreement,
that holds distinctively for certain special cases of joint coordination:
[24] i Two ham rolls and a glass of milk were hidden behind the lamp. [distributive]
ii Two ham rolls and a glass of milk was more than she wanted. [joint]
The 3rd person singular verb-form was indicates that the subject is understood collec-
tively as denoting a quantity – e.g. a quantity of food/drink to be consumed for lunch.
Other cases of joint coordination

Our examples so far have involved NP-coordinations in subject function, but joint
coordination is found more widely than this.
In the first place, joint NP-coordinations occur in other functions besides subject:
[25] i I introduced Kim and Pat to each other. [object]
ii I sat between Kim and Pat. [comp of preposition]
Secondly, the coordinates may belong to other categories:
[26] i He was eating and reading at the same time. [verbs]

ii The latter two were French and German respectively.
[adjectives]
iii He was wearing a black and white silk tie.
iv Telling him you were busy and then going out dancing was a mistake. [VPs]
Example [26i] is implicitly reciprocal in that the eating and reading were taking place at
the same time as each other (this is the salient interpretation: it is just possible to take
the coordination as distributive, with the events taking place at the same time as some-
thing specified in the preceding context). The joint interpretation of the coordination
in [26ii] is due to the respectively, whereas that in [iii] reflects a “partly–partly” sense: we
understand the tie in [iii] to be partly black and partly white. It is therefore quite different
from the pragmatically unlikely He was wearing a black tie and a white tie, which has him
wearing two ties. In [iv] what was a mistake was the combination of the two actions, not
each of them individually; it is not equivalent to the clausal coordination Telling me you
were busy was a mistake and then going out dancing was a mistake precisely because the
latter says that the two actions were separately mistaken.
1.3.3 NPs with discrete set interpretations (new and second-hand books)
NPs containing a dependent with the form of a coordination may be interpreted as
denoting discrete sets, each associated with a different coordinate. Compare:
[27] i They sell [new and second-hand books]. [discrete]
ii They offer [new and highly sophisticated programs]. [not discrete]
In [i] we have two discrete sets of books, a set of new books and a set of second-hand
books; in [ii], by contrast, we have a single set of programs, all of them being new and
highly sophisticated. The difference reflects the fact that while new and second-hand
denote mutually exclusive properties, new and highly sophisticated do not.
These examples involve count plural NPs, but the distinction is found also with non-
count NPs: They sell new and second-hand furniture (discrete types of furniture) vs They
offer new and highly sophisticated software (not discrete: the software is simultaneously
new and highly sophisticated). A discrete interpretation is inconsistent with a count
singular NP, though it is possible for the head of a count plural NP to be singular when
the coordination includes determiners (§4.4) – compare a new and a second-hand copy
(discrete: two copies, one new, one second-hand) and a new and highly sophisticated
program (not discrete, a singular NP: one program, simultaneously new and highly
sophisticated).
Discrete set interpretations can also be found when the dependent does not itself have
the form of a coordination but contains a coordination within it:

[28] i It will be opposed by [the premiers of Queensland and Tasmania].
[discrete]
ii I need the names of [the hotels he stayed at in Rome and Paris].
These have discrete interpretations like [27i], but in the first the coordination is within the
complement of of and in the second it is within the relative clause modifying hotels. The
discrete interpretations here derive from the knowledge that Queensland and Tasmania
are separate states and hence have separate premiers, that Rome and Paris are distinct
cities and hence have different hotels (compare the books he read in Rome and Paris,
where there is nothing to force a discrete interpretation).
Discrete vs not discrete can’t be identified with distributive vs joint

The distinction illustrated in [27] bears some resemblance to that between distributive and
joint coordination, but there are several reasons for not identifying it with the latter:
(a) Lack of grammaticalisation
The distinction in [27] is not reflected grammatically in the same way as that between
distributive and joint coordination – indeed it can hardly be said to be grammaticalised at
all. Thus both cases allow modifiers and coordinators other than and: They sell new but also
second-hand books ; They offer new but nevertheless thoroughly tested programs. And while
correlative both strongly favours a discrete interpretation (it could readily be inserted before
new in [i] but hardly in [ii]), it nevertheless does not require a discrete interpretation in cases
of post-modification:
[29] i Comments both favourable and critical had poured in. [discrete]
ii Comments both brief and to the point will be very welcome. [not discrete]
(b) Relation with clausal coordination

Secondly, we do not find the same sharp difference as with distributive vs joint coordination
when we compare with clausal coordination:
[30] i They sell new books and they sell second-hand books.
ii They offer new programs and they offer highly sophisticated programs.
Example [30i] is equivalent to [27i], but [30ii] does not contrast with [27ii] in the way that
Kim is in love and Pat is in love contrasts with the joint (reciprocal) interpretation of Kim and
§ 1.3.4 Constituent structure and scope ambiguities 1285
Pat are in love ([19i]), for it quite readily allows an interpretation where two properties are
assigned to a single set of programs.
(c) Indeterminacy
Consider also the range of contexts for such an example as
[31] I have seen the films showing on Saturday and Sunday.
If there is a single film showing each night, [31] will be interpreted discretely, as involving
two separate films (otherwise singular film would be used). Suppose, however, there is more
than one film each night: the Saturday and Sunday films may then be completely diffe-
rent (programs change on Sunday – a discrete interpretation) or completely the same (per-
haps programs change on Thursday). But it is also possible that some change and others
don’t – there is partial overlap. And we also have the case where only one film is show-
ing on Saturday but more than one on Sunday, or vice versa, again with or without a
change. There is no reason to say that these numerous different scenarios yield different
meanings for the NP: it simply gives no indication concerning the distribution of the films
over the two days (the same applies to the films showing at the week-end, where there is
no coordination). It is for this reason that [27ii] is labelled ‘not discrete’ rather than ‘non-
discrete’: it doesn’t say that the sets are discrete, but nor does it actually say that they are
non-discrete.
1.3.4 Constituent structure and scope ambiguities (long poems and essays)
In sequences of the form ‘Dependent–X1 –C–X2’ or ‘X1 –C–X2 –Dependent’, where C is
a coordinator and X1 and X2 are elements of the same kind able to function as head to
the dependent, there may be ambiguity according as the dependent applies to just the X
element adjacent to it or to the coordination ‘X1 –C–X2 ’.
The NP long poems and essays, for example, can have either of the following (simpli-
fied) structures:
[32] a. NP-coordination b. NP
Coordinate1 Coordinate2 Mod Head:

N-coordination
Mod Head Mkr Coordinate Coordinate1 Coordinate2
Head Mkr Coordinate
long poems and essays long poems and essays
In [a] the dependent long belongs in the first coordinate and modifies just poems : this
corresponds to the interpretation where the poems are long while the length of the essays
is not specified. In [b] long modifies the coordination poems and essays, which matches
the interpretation where both poems and essays are long: in this case the NP is equivalent
to the NP-coordination long poems and long essays.
The example just given involves an adjective modifying a nominal head, but the
structural contrast shown in [32] is found over a very wide range of dependent–head
constructions, as indicated in the formulation given at the beginning of this section.
The range of the phenomenon is illustrated in the paired examples given below. In each
pair, [a] has a salient interpretation where the dependent applies to just the adjacent ‘X’
element, and [b] one where it applies to the ‘X’ coordination: the constituent structures
will thus be similar to [32i] and [32ii] respectively (or to their mirror images in cases
where the dependent follows the head). Single underlining marks the dependent, double
underlining the associated head: thus in [33ia] extremely modifies the adjective rare in
[a] and the adjective-coordination tired and irritable in [b].

[33] i a. It was [extremely rare or unique].
[Mod–Adj]
b. He was [extremely tired and irritable].

ii a. He did it [very hurriedly but satisfactorily].
[Mod–Adv]
b. She spoke [very quickly and fluently].

iii a. He [often goes to bed before nine and likes plenty of exercise].
[Mod–VP]
b. He [often gets up at six and has a swim before breakfast].

iv a. Yesterday Ed was taken ill and the lecture’s been cancelled.
[Mod–Clause]
b. Yesterday Ed was taken ill and the lecture was cancelled].

v a. women and children under sixteen
[N–Mod]
b. men and women over fifty

vi a. He [left and phoned his wife].
[V–O]
b. He [hugged and kissed his wife].

vii a. I [went to bed and read the paper for a while].
[VP–Mod]
b. I [called the police and complained as soon as the party began].
Other things being equal, structure [b] – with the dependent applying to the coordi-
nation – is in general more likely. ‘Other things being equal’ requires that the dependent
could apply equally readily to either ‘X’ element.5 This condition is not met in four of
the examples. In [33ia] the adjective unique is hardly gradable in this context: the choice
must be between being extremely rare and being actually unique. In [iiia] going to bed
before nine is a serial state but liking plenty of exercise is a non-serial state, and hence
resists modification by often (cf. Ch. 3, §3.2). In [iva] the first clause is in the preterite
(was), while the second is present perfect (has been), and as such excludes the modi-
fier yesterday (cf. Ch. 3, §5.3.1). And in [va] women are all adults and hence not under
sixteen.
In [33iia] a type [b] reading is excluded by the contrary-to-expectation combination
of hurriedly and satisfactorily marked by the coordinator but. Example [via] allows in
principle a type [b] structure, but it is very unlikely because leaving one’s wife and phon-
ing her are not normally comparable, the former being a major and drastic occurrence,
the latter an everyday one. Finally in [viia] a type [b] interpretation is possible but un-
likely because it is much more usual to go to bed, read for a while, and then go to sleep
for the night than to go to bed, read for a while, and then get up.
5
The ‘other things being equal’ proviso also implies the absence of special prosody: a sharp prosodic break
after the first coordinate can signal a type [a] reading. Often, of course, this kind of interpretation can also
be unambiguously conveyed by reversing the order: in He was irritable and extremely tired, for example, the
dependent extremely clearly applies to tired alone.
§ 1.4 Order of coordinates 1287
1.4 Order of coordinates

Reversible and irreversible coordination
In the simplest cases, the order of bare coordinates is free, so that we can change the
order without discernible effect on interpretation or acceptability:

[34] i She [was very bright and had a warm personality].
[reversible: i = ii]
ii She [had a warm personality and was very bright].
We say here, then, that the coordination is reversible. In many other cases, however, the
coordination is irreversible, so that changing the order of the bare coordinates leads to
a different interpretation or to loss of acceptability, as in:

[35] i a. She [fell ill and went back to her mother’s].
[irreversible: ia = ib]
b. She [went back to her mother’s and fell ill ].

ii a. She had [far and away]the best outline.
[irreversible: only iia is acceptable]
b. ∗She had [away and far]the best outline.
We interpret [ia] with the falling ill preceding the return to her mother’s and [ib] with
the opposite order of events, and in [ii] only [a] is acceptable since far and away is a fixed
expression.
In this section we will consider certain general factors which cause the different orders
to be less than fully interchangeable; certain more specific ones (such as that involved in
[35i]) will be taken up in the discussion of the individual coordinators in §2.
Anaphora
Often, reversal is blocked for the simple reason that the second coordinate contains
(or has as a supplement) an item explicitly or implicitly anaphoric to the first or to an
element within it:
[36] i Her father had once lied to her and because of this she never really trusted him.
ii Jill was rich and Pat, moreover, was even richer.
In [i] this has the first coordinate as antecedent and him has her father : since an anaphoric
item and its antecedent cannot in general be located in successive coordinates, the order
can only be as in [i] itself. The same applies with [ii], where there is implicit anaphora:
the supplement moreover means roughly “besides this”, and richer is here understood as
“richer than her”. Quite similar are cases like I’ll tell the truth and nothing but the truth or
You and you alone will be held responsible, where there is repetition rather than anaphoric
reduction. The second coordinate must follow because it presupposes the first: I’ll tell
nothing but the truth presupposes that I’ll tell the truth, and so on.
Lexicalised coordinations
A large number of coordinations – mainly pairs of words joined by and or or – are
partially or fully lexicalised. The fully lexicalised ones constitute composite lexical items
with the order completely fixed and with meanings generally not fully predictable from
those of the coordinates and the coordinator:
[37] aid and abet betwixt and between by and large common or garden
first and foremost hem and haw high and dry hither and yon
let or hindrance part and parcel rhyme or reason rough and ready
rough and tumble spick and span to and fro well and truly
Some of these contain words that no longer occur in contemporary English other than
in the coordination: fro, hem, spick, etc.
Partially lexicalised coordinations are combinations where the items regularly go
together in a particular order; reversal is not impossible but represents a quite sharp
departure from the expected order:
[38] buy and sell come and go cup and saucer cuts and bruises
fish and chips for and against friend and foe head and shoulders 6
hope and pray husband and wife life and death loud and clear
meek and mild tried and tested
In both [37] and [38] the coordinates are often either near-synonyms (tried /tested,
meek /mild, first /foremost) or opposites of one kind or another (come /go, husband /
wife, buy/sell ).7
Ordering tendencies
In many cases, the fixed or preferred order of coordinates in fully or partially lexicalised
coordinations reflects certain tendencies that favour one order over another in ordinary,
non-lexicalised coordinations too.8
(a) Temporal order
Coordinates denoting periods or points of time tend to be ordered so as to match the
temporal order: past, present, and future ; yesterday, today, and tomorrow; the morning,
afternoon, and evening; sooner or later; on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday.Similarly with
states ordered in time, as in life and death, or parts of a whole, as beginning and end.
(b) Spatial hierarchy
With items arranged on the vertical dimension, there is a tendency to put the higher
before the lower: up and down, upstairs and downstairs , upper and lower, above and
below, head and shoulders, top and bottom. It may be that this order reflects the greater
salience of the higher in important cases like above and below ground, above and below the
horizon, and arguably a similar salience hierarchy is reflected on the horizontal dimension
in the ordering of front and back, fore and aft, etc.
(c) Deixis
The order in here and there, hither and thither, now and then, this and that reflects a deictic
hierarchy, with the reference of the first coordinate being closer to the deictic centre, the
time and place of the speech act. With the category of person, however, the hierarchy is
overridden by a convention of politeness, which has 1st person in final position. Compare
you and your sister (which accords with the hierarchy: 2nd person before 3rd) and my
sister and I (reversing the hierarchy, with 3rd person before 1st).9
6
This is fully lexicalised in its metaphorical sense: This model is head and shoulders above the rest.
7
Comparable to lexicalisation is institutionalisation in the form of proper names – of books, public houses,
organisations, etc. Many such names consist of or include coordinations, and the order of the coordinates is
of course fixed as part of the name: Pride and Prejudice ; the Hare and Hounds ; the Department of Employment,
Education and Training.
8
Lexicalisation may also have been facilitated in expressions following certain phonologically favoured pat-
terns, such as shorter before longer (in terms of number of syllables, stuff and nonsense, out and about,
or length of vowel, stress and strain, brush and comb), high vowels before low in monosyllables (dribs
and drabs, fits and starts), more sonorant before less sonorant initial consonant (high and dry, hope and
pray).
9
Non-standard !Me and my sister were alone simply follows the deictic hierarchy. With time and space factors
(a) and (b) may outweigh (c): yesterday, today, and tomorrow ; up there and down here.
§ 2 Coordinators and related linking items 1289
(d) Polarity and evaluation

Positive terms tend to precede negatives: yes and no, admit or deny, accept or refuse,
with or without. The concepts of positive and negative are extended to many scales of
evaluation, and it is again the positive (more highly valued) term that tends to come first:
good and bad , for [better or worse], friend or foe, right or wrong. The concepts are also
relevant to pairs like come and go and arrive and depart, where the positive–negative
contrast is a matter of being at a certain place and not being there.
(e) Social hierarchy
Another tendency is for the order to reflect social status: employers and employees; officers
and men; peers and commoners. Two special cases of this hierarchy rank adults above
children and males above females: father and son ; Mr and Mrs ; the Duke and Duchess of
Penzance ; husband and wife; brothers and sisters; he or she; men, women, and children.
The male–female order is reversed, however, in Ladies and Gentlemen; bride and groom;
mums and dads.10 Precisely because the usual male–female order can be seen as reflecting
the social hierarchy, it can be regarded as a case of ‘sexism’ in language – and it may then
be consciously reversed for that reason; it has, however, received very much less attention
and criticism than more obvious cases of sexist language such as the use of masculine
terms like he to subsume females (Ch. 5, §17.2.4).
2 Coordinators and related linking items
Coordination, we have said, is a relation between elements of equal syntactic status, and
as such contrasts with subordination, a relation between elements of unequal status,
dependent and head. As so often, however, we find that while the central or prototypical
cases of coordination and subordination are sharply distinct, there is no clear boundary
between the peripheries of the constructions and therefore some uncertainty concerning
the precise membership of the category of coordinators. In this section we will first out-
line the distinctive grammatical properties of prototypical coordination and its markers,
and then consider in turn a range of linking items including those that are clear members
of the coordinator category, others that lie at the periphery, and some with insufficient
similarity to justify inclusion in the coordinator category.
2.1 Properties of prototypical coordinators

(a) Unlimited number of coordinates
Arguably the most important distinctive property of coordination is that there is no
grammatical limit to the number of coordinates that can be joined in a single layer of
coordination.
10
The order in Ladies and Gentlemen is widely felt to be a matter of conventional politeness, though historically
it may be related to the origin of lady as the female counterpart of lord and hence higher in the social hierarchy
than gentleman. There is also a historical explanation for bride and groom : the second term derives from
bride’s groom, which followed bride because it is defined in terms of its relation to the latter. With names,
the male–female hierarchy is likely to take second place to the pragmatic principle of ordering according to
primary interest: in a context where Kim and Pat are married, for example, Kim’s parents are likely to refer to
them as Kim and Pat, Pat’s as Pat and Kim, and so on.
[1] i He invited Kim and Ed and Max and Pat and Tom and Bob and Sue and Di.
ii He invited Kim, Ed, Max, Pat, Tom, Bob, Sue, and Di.
These have eight coordinates, but clearly we could add as many more as we wished: the
limits are set by style, comprehensibility, etc., not by grammar.
Coordinators are in this respect clearly distinct from prepositions and subordinators:
repetition of these necessarily involves further layers of subordination. Compare, for
example, coordinator and with preposition of. There are three possible structures for a
sequence ‘X and Y and Z ’ , two with layering, one without (cf. §1.2), but for ‘X of Y of Z ’
there are only two, both with layering:
[2] a. LEFT-LAYERED b. RIGHT-LAYERED c. UNLAYERED
fish and chips and ice-cream soup and fish and chips beans (and) peas and carrots
works of art of value threats of loss of face [not possible with of ]
In [a] fish and chips and works of art form a unit on the left, and in [b] fish and chips
and loss of face form a unit on the right; but in [c] (where the first and is omissible)
there is no such intermediate grouping – and of cannot occur in this kind of structure.
Similarly with if + clause: Stay indoors if it’s wet, if you want has a left-layered structure
comparable to [a], and Don’t appoint him if he’d panic if there was a crisis has a right-
layered one comparable to [b], but there is no possibility of an unlayered sequence ‘X
(if ) Y if Z ’. The clause subordinator that allows unlimited iteration in structures like
Kim said that Pat thought that you had recommended that we accept the offer, but again
this clearly involves layering (on the right). There is therefore no subordinative analogue
of the unlayered multiple coordination [c].
(b) Coordinates must be syntactically alike

Since coordination is a relation between elements of equal status, they must be syntac-
tically alike. Just what this means is a question we take up in §3.1, but it is sufficient for
present purposes to note that the coordinates are usually of the same syntactic category.
Coordinators can thus be seen to contrast sharply with clause subordinators and prepo-
sitions, both of which relate a subordinate element to a superordinate one that can be
syntactically quite unlike it:

[3] i a. The [fact that he’s a politician]makes it worse.
[clause subordinators]
b. He was [unsure whether to accept her offer].

ii a. His anger contrasted with his [mood before he’d seen them].
[prepositions]
b. He [collapsed on hearing the news].
In [i] the clause subordinator that relates the finite clause he’s a politician to the noun
fact, while whether relates the infinitival clause to accept her offer to the adjective unsure.
In [ii] the preposition before likewise relates a finite clause to a noun, he’d seen them
to mood, while on relates non-finite hearing the news to finite collapsed. Substitution
of coordinator and leads to complete unacceptability in all such cases – it requires
§ 2.1 Properties of prototypical coordinators 1291
structures like She’s a doctor and he’s a politician, I plan [to resign and to accept her offer],
etc., where like is coordinated with like.
(c) Wide range of categories that can be coordinated

Almost any syntactic category can be coordinated. The categories that can be related by
a coordinator are thus considerably more numerous and diverse than those that can be
related by a preposition.
Coordination of finite VPs
One category that occurs freely with coordinators but not with prepositions is that of
finite VP:
[4] i She finished the report and went home. [coordination]
ii She finished the report before going home. [subordination]
Finite went home is impossible in [ii],11 while gerund-participial going home is excluded
from [i] by the requirement that the coordinates be alike (both finite or both gerund-
participial).
Coordination of nominals
A second category of elements that can occur readily with coordinators but not generally
with prepositions is that of nominals, elements smaller than full NPs:
[5] i They found [her son and younger daughter]. [coordination]
ii ∗They found [her son with younger daughter]. [subordination]
In [i] the coordinates son and younger daughter are nominals, not NPs, for the determiner
her is outside the coordination. The ungrammaticality of [ii] shows that the preposition
with cannot similarly combine with a nominal, but requires a full NP: They found her
son with her younger daughter.
(d) Impossibility of fronting an expanded coordinate

A coordinator and its coordinate cannot be moved to front position. Note here the
contrast between the coordinator but and the preposition although :

[6] i a. He joined the club but he had little spare time.
[coordination]
b. ∗But he had little spare time he joined the club.

ii a. He joined the club although he had little spare time.
[subordination]
b. Although he had little spare time he joined the club.
This restriction reflects the fact that the coordinates are of equal status. The structure
we have assigned to a binary coordination is Coordinate1 + Coordinate2 : the numer-
ical subscripts indicate only the linear position, not a functional difference. There can
therefore be no alternation between ‘Coordinate1 + Coordinate2’ and ‘Coordinate2 +
Coordinate1’, for the latter is incoherent, given this interpretation of the subscripts.12
(e) Across the board application of syntactic processes

A special consequence of the requirement that coordinates be syntactically alike is
that certain syntactic processes must apply across the board, i.e. to each one of the
11
We can have She finished the report before she went home, but the complement of the preposition is here a
clause, not a finite VP.
12
We can of course have He had little spare time but he joined the club, but this has exactly the same structure as
[6i] (Coordinate1 + Coordinate2 ); property (d) is concerned with expanded coordinates, not bare ones.
coordinates. Compare from this point of view the coordinative and subordinative con-
structions in:
[7] i They attended the dinner but they are not members. [coordinator]
ii They attended the dinner although they are not members. [preposition]
If we relativise these and embed them as modifier within NP structure, we must relativise
both clauses in [i], i.e. across the board, but only the superordinate clause in [ii]:
[8] i Those [who attended the dinner but who are not members] owe $20.
ii Those [who attended the dinner although they are not members] owe $20.
The contrast here is very sharp: coordinates are treated alike, but a subordinate clause is
unaffected by processes applying to its superordinate.
Compare now:

[9] i a. You recommended the book and she enjoyed it so much.
[coordination]
b. It was a cold, wet evening and she enjoyed the book so much.
c. He said that she enjoyed the book so much. [subordination]
ii a. the book [which you recommended and she enjoyed so much]
b. ∗the book [which it was a cold, wet evening and she enjoyed so much]
c. the book [which he said that she enjoyed so much]
This time, instead of a coordination of relative clauses, as in [8i], we have a coordi-
nation within a single relative construction, but the across the board requirement still
holds. What it means here is that the relative pronoun which must relate to both coor-
dinates: in [9iia] it is understood as object of both recommended and enjoyed. This is
why [iib] is ungrammatical: the first coordinate is it was a cold wet evening, which is a
complete clause, with no gap understood as linked to which (“the book”). The relative
construction in [iic] also involves two clauses, but since they are related by subordina-
tion which does not have to have a role in each: it is understood simply as object of
enjoyed.
For the same reason which cannot itself coordinate with a non-relative NP – compare
Kim and Pat invited them and ∗I blame Kim, who and Pat invited them. Similarly with
other unbound dependency constructions such as open interrogatives: ∗Who and Pat
invited them? 13
(f) Only one coordinator per coordinate

The coordinators are mutually exclusive, with a single coordinate containing at most
one of them. This property distinguishes coordinators not from prepositions but from
connective adverbs such as yet, moreover, etc.:
[10] i ∗She was extremely bright and but very humble. [coordinator + coordinator]
ii She was extremely bright and yet very humble. [coordinator + adverb]
There is a very sharp contrast here between the adverb yet, which can combine with and
(as a modifier within the expanded coordinate) and but, which can’t – we need She was
extremely bright but very humble.
13
An interesting exception to this constraint is seen in the attested example Even Barbara, [between whom and
Juliet there should by rights have existed a great awkwardness,] was in some ways easier to grasp than Frances. Such
exceptions would seem to be restricted to relative clauses containing a coordination functioning as complement
to between.
§ 2.2 And and or 1293
(g) Coordinators must occupy initial position

In expanded coordinates, the coordinator always comes first. Compare:
[11] i It had rained all week and we were short of food. [coordinator]

ii It had rained all week; moreover, we were short of food.
[adverb]
iii It had rained all week; we were, moreover, short of food.
Again, this property distinguishes coordinators from connective adverbs. The only po-
sition available to and in the second clause is the initial one shown in [i], but the adverb
moreover can occur in a variety of positions, as illustrated in [ii–iii] (it could also occur
after we or at the end of the clause).
The two most central coordinators are and and or : these have all the above properties.
The next most important coordinator is but, which lacks property (a), however. Nor is
also a clear member of the category. In addition, there are a few items, such as as well
as, plus, etc., which in some uses have arguably been reanalysed to become marginal
members of the coordinator category.
2.2 And and or

The relation between and and or is comparable to that between all and some – or uni-
versal and existential quantification (Ch. 5, §5.1). Compare:
[12] a. We’ll invite [Kim, Pat, and Alex]. b. We’ll invite [Kim, Pat, or Alex].
Example [a] entails that we will invite all members of the set expressed by the coor-
dination, while [b] says that we’ll invite some member of that set. With and we are
concerned with a set in its totality, whereas with or the members of the set are regarded
as alternatives.
2.2.1 Logical conjunction and disjunction

We will focus first on clausal coordination of declaratives and subclausal coordination
that is equivalent to it.

[13] i a. He came to work by bus today and he has gone home early.
[clausal]
b. He came to work by bus today or he has gone home early.
ii a. There is a copy [on the desk and in the top drawer].
b. There is a copy [on the desk or in the top drawer]. [subclausal]
In [i] the bare coordinates express the simple propositions “He came to work by bus to-
day” and “He has gone home early”, while the whole coordination expresses a composite
proposition containing the two simple ones. In [ia], where the coordinates are joined by
and, the composite proposition is true if and only if both simple propositions are true;
in [ib], where they are joined by or, the composite proposition is true if and only if either
simple proposition is true. Because the subclausal coordination in [ii] is equivalent to
clausal coordination we can handle these examples in the same way: [iia] is true if and
only if both simple propositions (“There is a copy on the desk” and “There is a copy in
the top drawer”) are true, while [iib] is true if and only if either of them is true.14
14
When we talk of a clause or clause-coordination being true, this is a shorthand way of saying that the proposition
that in some context it is or can be used to assert is true.
Or is most characteristically used when the speaker believes that only one of the
component propositions is true. A plausible context for [13ib], for example, is one
where his car is not in the place it would be expected to be if he had come to work by
car and had not yet gone home: I am offering alternative explanations for the absence of
the car, not envisaging the possibility that both might apply. And with [iib] it may well
be that I have in mind a single copy that is in one or other location – in this case the
component propositions are mutually exclusive, just as they are in Kim is in the study or
in the rumpus-room.
But or doesn’t mean that only one of the alternatives is true. Example [13ib] doesn’t
explicitly exclude the possibility that both explanations apply. And if we modify our
contextualisation of [iib] so that there could be more than one copy, then the possibility
arises of there being a copy in both locations. There’s a copy in the office or in the library,
for example, is perfectly consistent with both component propositions being true – and
indeed I might say it knowing that both are true, using or rather than and because I’m
thinking of a choice as to which copy to consult.
We will take up this point below, arguing that the ‘only one’ feature commonly
associated with or has the status of an implicature. And where we have this implicature
that only one of the component propositions is true, there will generally be a further
implicature that the speaker doesn’t know which it is. If I utter [13iib] in a context where
there is only one copy, for example, you will normally assume that I don’t know precisely
where it is, whether on the desk or in the top drawer – because if I did know I would
surely tell. But, very clearly, this is again not part of the meaning of or but a matter of
pragmatics. There is, for example, nothing anomalous about The question in Part 2 is on
Molière or Racine, but I’m not telling you any more than that. The second clause implicates
that I do know which of the alternatives is the true one, and yet it is quite consistent with
the or in the first clause – the but clause here cancels or blocks the “I don’t know which”
implicature commonly found with or.
The collective and alternative relations expressed by and and or in such examples as
[13] correspond closely to the relations known to logicians as conjunction and disjunc-
tion. These are operations on propositions that are entirely defined by their effects on
truth; the truth value of a proposition formed by conjunction or disjunction is fully
determined by the truth values of the component propositions.
Conjunction
Suppose “P” and “Q” are two propositions. The logical conjunction of “P” and “Q” is often
symbolised as “P & Q”. By the definition of conjunction, “P & Q” is true if and only if both
“P” and “Q” are true. In all other circumstances, “P & Q” is false. This matches what we said
above about the coordinations with and. In [13ia] “P” = “He came to work by bus today”
and “Q” = “He has gone home early”, and the whole coordination is true if and only if both
of these propositions are true, and likewise in [iia], with “P” now having the value “There is
a copy on the desk”, and “Q” the value “There is a copy in the top drawer”.
Inclusive and exclusive disjunction

Logicians distinguish two kinds of disjunction: inclusive and exclusive disjunction. The
inclusive disjunction of “P” and “Q” is often written “P ∨ Q”. It is true if and only if at
least one of the propositions “P” and “Q” is true. The exclusive disjunction of “P” and “Q”
will be written here as “P ∨ Q”. It is true if and only if exactly one of “P” and “Q” is true.
§ 2.2.1 Logical conjunction and disjunction 1295
Truth tables for conjunction and disjunction

Because these definitions are given entirely in terms of conditions under which propositions
are true, we can express them in the form of truth tables. We assume that “P” and “Q” can
be true or false independently of each other. We list the four possible combinations of truth
values for them at the left of the table, and then show the truth values that “P & Q”, “P ∨ Q”,
and “P ∨ Q” would have for each of the four combinations:
[14] Truth values Conjunction Inclusive disjunction Exclusive disjunction
P Q P&Q P∨Q P∨Q
i true true true true false

ii true false false true true
iii false true false true true
iv false false false false false
For example, row [i] of the table corresponds to a situation in which “P” and “Q” are both
true. In such a situation, “P & Q” makes a true claim, as shown in the column labelled
‘Conjunction’; so does “P ∨ Q”, as shown in the ‘Inclusive disjunction’ column; but “P ∨ Q”
is false, as the final column indicates. Row [ii] covers the case where “P” is true but “Q” is
false, and so on.
And in [13ia/iia], we have said, expresses conjunction: the whole coordination is true
in situations corresponding to [14i] and false in situations corresponding to [14ii–iv]. Or
in [13ib/iib] expresses inclusive disjunction: the coordinations are true in situations corre-
sponding to [14i–iii] and false only in a situation like [iv] – i.e. for [13ib], in a context where
he didn’t come to work by bus today and he hasn’t gone home early, or for [13iib], where
there is no copy on the desk and no copy in the top drawer.
Exclusiveness as an implicature of or
Of the three contexts where these or-coordinations are true, the ones I am most likely to
intend in uttering [13ib/iib] are those corresponding to [14ii–iii], where just one of the
alternatives is true. Indeed, the alternatives joined by or are often mutually exclusive, or are
intended by the speaker to be seen as mutually exclusive:
[15] i He was born on Christmas Day 1950 or 1951.
ii I shall walk or catch the bus.
iii You can have a pork chop or an omelette.
In [i] we know that he can’t have been born on two different Christmas Days; in [ii] it will
normally be a matter of going the whole distance on foot or taking the bus; and [iii] will
generally be used to offer or report a choice between two alternatives. It does not follow,
however, that or here expresses exclusive disjunction. We shall say, rather, that or expresses
inclusive disjunction but that a statement with the form ‘P or Q ’ is typically interpreted as
carrying the implicature “P and Q are not both true”.
Some or-coordinations are clearly not inconsistent with situation [14i]:
[16] i There’s a copy in the office or in the library.
ii Either the mailman hasn’t got here yet or there’s no mail for us today.
As noted above, [i] does not exclude the possibility that there’s a copy in the office and in
the library – and we could indeed add perhaps both, explicitly allowing for it. Similarly15
15
Compare also They had contacted some or all of the witnesses : in cases like this, if “Q” (“They had contacted all
of the witnesses”) is true then “P” (“They had contacted some of them”) must be too (cf. Ch. 5, §5.2), so the
choice is between contexts [14i] and [ii].
[ii] certainly does not rule out the case where the mailman is still on his way but has no mail
for us. The or in [16] must be inclusive, which means that if we were to say that or expresses
exclusive disjunction in [15] we would be saying that or is ambiguous between inclusive and
exclusive meanings. There are, however, several reasons why it would not be satisfactory to
handle the relation between [15] and [16] in terms of a difference between two meanings
of or.
(a) Disambiguation
Assigning two meanings to or does not itself account for the exclusive interpretation of [15]:
we would still have to show how or is disambiguated here, how we select one meaning, the
exclusive one, rather than the other. In [15i], for example, the inclusive reading is ruled out
by our knowledge that one cannot be born on successive Christmas Days. But instead of this
knowledge selecting one meaning of or over another it can be seen as simply narrowing down
the range of possible contexts for the whole coordination: or itself rules out only context
[14iv] and our knowledge about the world (that you can’t be born twice) further excludes
context [14i].
(b) Not a matter of false vs true
If we analyse [15i] as having the logical form “P ∨ Q” and [16i], say, as “P ∨ Q”, we are
saying that in context [14i] the former is false and the latter true, but this is not in fact how
they differ. It is not that [15i] is false in this context, but that this context is not a practical
possibility for [15i], so that the question of whether it is true in that context doesn’t arise, or
has no intuitively clear answer.
(c) Negation
Thirdly, and most importantly, a logically negated or-coordination is true only in context
[14iv]:
[17] i There isn’t a copy on the desk or in the top drawer.
ii I shan’t walk or go by bus.
These entail that both alternatives are false, i.e. “There isn’t a copy on the desk and there isn’t
a copy in the top drawer”, “I shan’t walk and I shan’t go by bus”. Logical negation reverses
the truth value, and the truth values for these examples are the reverse of those for inclusive
disjunction, namely false, false, false, true for contexts [14i–iv] respectively. Thus [17ii], for
example, is true only when “I shall walk” and “I shall go by bus” are both false, i.e. in context
[14iv]. If the or of [15ii] expressed exclusive disjunction, [17ii] should have the values true,
false, false, true, “Maybe I’ll both walk and go by bus, maybe I’ll do neither”, but that is
clearly not what it means. It means I’ll do neither. The force of this argument becomes even
greater when we consider multiple or-coordination:
[18] i They will appoint Kim, Pat, or Alex to oversee the election.
ii They won’t appoint Kim, Pat, or Alex to oversee the election.
Although [i] will normally convey that they will appoint just one of Kim, Pat, and Alex, this
is not what it means, for [ii] is not the negation of the proposition that they will appoint
just one of them. If it were, it would mean that they will appoint all three of them, or any
two, or none at all: in fact, of course, [ii] means simply that they will appoint none of
them.
The “not and” implicature associated with or belongs to the family of scalar implicatures – it
is, for example, closely comparable to the “not all” implicature of some (cf. Ch. 5, §5.2).
§ 2.2.1 Logical conjunction and disjunction 1297
A scalar implicature arises when two items are arranged on a scale where one is ‘stronger’
than the other: use of the weaker one implicates the negation of the stronger. And is stronger
than or : ‘P and Q ’ entails ‘P or Q ’ (since whenever ‘P and Q ’ is true, i.e. in context [14i],
‘P or Q ’ is true too) but ‘P or Q ’ does not entail ‘P and Q ’ (since ‘P or Q ’ can be true
while ‘P and Q ’ is false, namely in contexts [14ii–iii]). In general we don’t use the weaker
of two terms if we could use the stronger – e.g. we don’t generally say ‘P or Q ’ if we know
‘P and Q ’ to be true. If I know they appointed Kim and Pat to oversee the election, it will
normally be inappropriate to say They appointed Kim or Pat to oversee the election, for this
is likely to suggest that they appointed just one but that I don’t know which of the two it
was. Similarly, if I intend to invite Kim and Pat to dinner, it is normally misleading to say
I’ll invite Kim or Pat to dinner. The most likely reason for saying ‘P or Q ’ rather than ‘P
and Q ’ , therefore, is that the latter would be false, which leads to the “not and” implica-
ture. But that isn’t the only reason for saying ‘P or Q ’: it may be that I know that one or
other of “P” and “Q” is true, but don’t know whether both are, as is likely to be the case
in [16ii].
As usual, the implicature can be made explicit in a but-coordinate: He’ll invite Kim or Pat,
but not both (comparable to He’ll invite some of them, but not all ).16 And it can be cancelled
in similar ways: He’ll invite Kim or Pat, perhaps both (comparable to He’ll invite some of them,
perhaps all ).
When or implicates “and’’

In certain cases ‘P or Q’ has the opposite implicature, namely “P and Q”:
[19] i Houses are cheaper in Perth than in Sydney or Melbourne.
ii They are obtainable at Coles or Woolworths.
In their salient interpretations, these are pragmatically equivalent to sentences with and
instead of or.17 The crucial feature is that although they present a choice it doesn’t matter to
the speaker which alternative is chosen. In [i] there is a choice (hence or) between comparing
Perth with Sydney and comparing it with Melbourne, but it makes sense to state that Perth
is cheaper than whichever alternative you might pick only in one circumstance: that Perth
is cheaper than both. Similarly in [ii] you have a choice between obtaining them at Coles
and obtaining them at Woolworths, but this choice presupposes that both stores stock them;
hence the implicature that they are obtainable at Coles and at Woolworths. This phenomenon
occurs in the same contexts as those where any is pragmatically equivalent to all (Ch. 5, §7.5).
Such contexts most commonly involve comparison, as in [i], or – with varying degrees of
explicitness – the modality of possibility, as in [ii] (cf. also She can speak French, German, or
Russian, and so on).
16
This provides further evidence against saying that or expresses exclusive disjunction: if ‘P or Q ’ has “not both P
and Q” as part of its meaning, but should be inappropriate in ‘P or Q but not both’, for it implies contrast (§2.5).
The implicature can also be cancelled by metalinguistic negation (as opposed to logical negation: Ch. 9, §1.2),
as in They didn’t appoint Kim OR Pat, they appointed BOTH ; metalinguistic negation of inclusive disjunction
differs from logical negation of exclusive disjunction in that it doesn’t allow situations corresponding to [14iv].
17
In a less likely interpretation the “not both” implicature applies, accompanied by an implication of ignorance –
e.g., for [ii], “They are obtainable at one or other of Coles and Woolworths, but I don’t know (can’t remember)
which”.
Or in questions
One special case where or-coordination is interpreted exclusively is the alternative ques-
tion (Ch. 10, §4.4). In this type of question (which has an intonational rise on the initial
coordinate, and fall on the final one) or is essential, whereas when it appears in other
types of question it is merely incidental:
[20] without OR with OR
i a. [not possible: or essential] b. Would you like tea or coffee ? [alternative]
ii a. Would you like a drink ? b. Would you like tea or coffee ? [polar]
iii a. Who would like a drink? b. Who would like tea or coffee? [variable]
In [ib] or does not appear in the answers, which are simply “I would like tea” and “I
would like coffee” – they are presented as alternative answers, such that one and only one
of them is true. “Both” is not a possible answer in that it rejects this presupposition of
mutual exclusiveness. In [iib] and [iiib], or is retained in the answers: e.g. “Yes, I would
like tea or coffee” and “No, I would not like tea or coffee” for [iib].18
2.2.2 And and or in combination with negation

When a subclausal or-coordination falls within the scope of a negative, it is equivalent
to an and-coordination of negative clauses:
[21] i I didn’t like his mother or his father.
ii I didn’t like his mother and I didn’t [“not A-or-B” = “not-A and not-B”]
like his father.
Similarly He can’t read or write means “He can’t read and he can’t write”, No one
had seen Kim or Pat means “No one had seen Kim and no one had seen Pat”, and
so on.
Conversely, when a subclausal and-coordination falls within the scope of a negative
it is equivalent to an or-coordination of negative clauses:

[22] i He isn’t both treasurer and secretary.
[“not A-and-B” = “not-A or not-B”]
ii He isn’t treasurer or he isn’t secretary.
Note that both of [22i–ii] implicate that he is either treasurer or secretary. In the case of [ii]
or triggers the usual “not and” implicature – that “He isn’t treasurer” and “He isn’t secretary”
are not both true. It then follows from this that “He is treasurer” and “He is secretary” are
not both false, i.e. that he is either treasurer or secretary. In the case of [i] the implicature
that he is either treasurer or secretary derives from the familiar type of scalar implicature:
[i] is weaker than He isn’t either treasurer or secretary and hence implicates that the latter is
not true.
Matters are complicated, however, by the fact that a negative does not always have scope
over a following subclausal coordination. Whereas and falls within the scope of the
negative in [22i], it is more often the other way round, with and having scope over the
negative:
[23] i I didn’t like his mother and father.
ii I’m not free on Saturday and Sunday.
18
It is nevertheless likely to be dropped from a response in the interests of greater informativeness: Yes, thank
you, I’d love some coffee. For the contrast between answer and response, see Ch. 10, §4.1.
§ 2.2.3 Asymmetric constructions, I 1299
Natural interpretations are “I didn’t like his mother and I didn’t like his father” and “I’m
not free on Saturday and I’m not free on Sunday (i.e. I’m not free this week-end)”. There
is also a less salient reading in which the scopes are reversed, e.g. for [ii]: “I’m not free on
both days” (with an implicature that I’m only free on one); this kind of interpretation
characteristically has and stressed.
Or generally falls within the scope of a preceding negative, as in [21i], but wide scope
readings are often possible as less likely interpretations:
[24] He wasn’t at work on Monday or Tuesday.
The salient interpretation is “He wasn’t at work on Monday and he wasn’t at work on
Tuesday”, but it can also be read as “On Monday or Tuesday (I can’t remember precisely
which day it was) he wasn’t at work”.19
Not cannot have scope over a coordination of full main clauses. In He didn’t like it
or he was in a hurry, for example, the negative applies just to the first clause. To ex-
press negation of or and and we thus generally need coordination within a single main
clause, either of phrases, as in [21i], or of subordinate clauses, as in It’s not the case
that he was being investigated by the fraud squad or that he had offered to resign (equiva-
lent to He wasn’t being investigated by the police and he hadn’t offered to resign).20 Analo-
gously for and.
Equivalences in conditionals
The equivalence between narrow scope or and wide scope and seen in [21] in the context
of negation is found also in the context of explicit or implicit conditionals:
[25] i a. You’ll see more if you walk or cycle.
b. You’ll see more if you walk and if you cycle.
ii a. Those who are late or (who) are improperly dressed will be punished.
b. Those who are late and those who are improperly dressed will be punished.
In [ia] or is within the scope of if, while in [iia] it is within a relative clause, but the
whole construction is implicitly conditional, conveying “If anyone is late or improperly
dressed they will be punished”, where or is again within the scope of if.
2.2.3 Asymmetric constructions, i: and (He got up and had breakfast, etc.)
Example [13iia], There is a copy on the desk and in the top drawer, is symmetric in
that it is equivalent to There is a copy in the top drawer and on the desk, where the
coordinates appear in the reverse order. Similarly for the corresponding example with
or and indeed the other examples considered in §§2.2.1–2. We have noted, however,
that the order of coordinates is not always reversible in this way, and where the dif-
ferent orders convey different meanings we will speak of the coordination as asym-
metric. The fact that the orders are not interchangeable indicates that the linked
19
If the coordination is moved to the front, as in this gloss, it will be unambiguously outside the scope of the
negative. Expanding the second coordinate by a modifier can also give the coordination wide scope, as in He
wasn’t at work on Monday or perhaps Tuesday.
20
The qualification ‘generally’ is needed because there is another possibility, involving gapping (§4.2), as in Kim
hadn’t been at home on Monday or Pat on Tuesday. Here or is within the scope of the negative in the first clause,
so that the meaning is “Kim hadn’t been at home on Monday and Pat hadn’t been at home on Tuesday”.
terms are not, strictly speaking, of equal status, and hence the constructions concerned
are not cases of prototypical coordination. We will see that they exhibit varying de-
grees of affinity with subordination: in particular, they do not always conform to the
‘across the board’ requirement that applies to symmetric coordination (cf. property (e)
of §2.1).
We look first at asymmetric uses of and and then turn to or in §2.2.4.
Temporal sequence: ‘X and Y ’ implicates “X and then Y”

Where the coordinates denote occurrences rather than states, the linear order generally
reflects the temporal sequence of the events:
[26] i He got up and had breakfast.
ii I went over to Jill’s and we checked the proofs.
We interpret [i] as “He got up and then had breakfast”, [ii] as “I went over to Jill’s and then
we checked the proofs (there)”. Reversing the coordinates would reverse the sequence of
events – He had breakfast and got up, for example, conveys that he had breakfast before
getting up (i.e. he had breakfast in bed).
We analyse this “then” interpretation as an implicature, not part of a distinct meaning
of and. There are three reasons for treating it in this way.
(a) Not dependent on and

The same implicature can be found across sentences with no coordinative link between
them – e.g. if we substitute a full stop for and in [26ii].
(b) Variation in strength
The implicature varies in strength according to the context: for example, it is stronger
in In the afternoon I mowed the lawn and had a game of tennis (narrating past events)
than in In the afternoon I will mow the lawn and have a game of tennis (intended future
events).
(c) Possibility of cancellation
Thirdly and most importantly, the implicature can be cancelled: Before leaving town he handed
in his resignation and phoned his wife, though I don’t know which he did first.
Nevertheless, the temporal sequence can be treated as part of the propositional content of
the utterance, as when I ask: Did he get up and have breakfast, or have breakfast and get up?
Moreover, this is one of the places where we find some relaxation of the usual ‘across the
board’ requirement – notably in coordinations of VPs where the first expresses motion: I’ve
mislaid the proofs which I had gone over to Jill’s and checked so carefully with her.
Consequence: ‘X and Y ’ implicates “X and therefore Y’’

Another common implicature is that the event expressed in the second coordinate is not
only later than that expressed in the first but also a consequence of it:
[27] i The principal came in and everybody immediately stopped talking.
ii I fell off the ladder and broke my leg.
Here you will infer that the principal’s entrance caused everybody to stop talking, that I
broke my leg as a result of falling off the ladder.
§ 2.2.3 Asymmetric constructions, I 1301
Condition: ‘X and Y ’ implicates “if X then Y’’

Closely related to consequence is condition, as in:
[28] i I express the slightest reservation and he accuses me of disloyalty.
ii Come over here and you’ll be able to see better.
iii Do that again and you’ll be fired.
Example [i] is interpreted as “If I express the slightest reservation, he accuses me of
disloyalty”. In the form given, it belongs to informal style, but a somewhat less restricted
version is found with modal necessity added to the first coordinate: I only have to ex-
press the slightest reservation and he accuses me of disloyalty. Examples [ii–iii] illustrate
the special case of the conditional implicature where the whole coordination has di-
rective force (Ch. 10, §9.5). The implicature of [ii] is “If you come over here you’ll be
able to see better”, which provides a reason for complying with the directive “Come
over here”. Similarly, [iii] implicates “If you do that again you’ll be fired” but – as-
suming being fired is something you will want to avoid – this provides a reason for
not complying with the apparent directive, so the end result is “Don’t do that again”.
These examples have the form imperative + declarative; we also find two imperatives,
as in Join the Navy and see the world (the fact that you’ll see the world if you join the
Navy is an incentive for joining), or the first coordinate can be of another form used
with directive force, as in I suggest you come over here and then you’ll be able to see
better.
The logical link between conjunction and condition that facilitates the implicature is that
both “P & Q” and “if P then Q” exclude the case where “P” is true and “Q” false, e.g. (for
[28i]) where I express some slight reservation and he doesn’t accuse me of disloyalty.
Concession: ‘X and Y ’ implicates “despite X, Y’’

Here we have a “nevertheless/despite” relation between a second coordinate VP and the
first:
[29] i You can eat as much of this as you like and not put on weight.
ii They expect us to get up at 3 a.m. and look bright and cheerful.
This is the opposite of consequence: your not putting on weight will be in spite of your
eating as much as you like, not the result of your doing so. Again the inequality of status
is reflected syntactically by relaxation of the ‘across the board’ condition. This time,
however, we find unmatched extractions from the first rather than second coordinate:
How much of this can one eat and not put on weight?
Temporal inclusion: ‘X and Y ’ implicates “X while Y’’

In informal style and may be interpreted as “while”:
[30] i He came in and I was still asleep.
ii Did he come in and I was still asleep?
The inequality of status is especially apparent in [ii], where the first clause is interrogative
and the second declarative, and yet the whole is a single question: the question compo-
nent has scope over the second clause just as it would if it were subordinate, as in Did
he come in while I was still asleep?
Formulaic frames
Under this heading we include constructions of the form ‘X and Y’ where X is fixed (or
nearly so), but Y is not, and the whole is partially idiomatic.
(a) Nice/good and Adj/Adv
[31] i The coffee is nice and hot.
ii He hit it good and hard.
Example [i] is not understood in the same way as the ordinary coordination The coffee
is sweet and hot : in the latter each coordinate expresses a property of the coffee, but
in [i] nice applies rather to the heat (“It was nice by virtue of being hot, nicely hot,
hot to a nice extent”), so that the interpretation is more like that of a subordinative
construction than of a coordination. Compare also It was nice and not too expensive
(ordinary) and It was nice and cheap (idiomatic – unless the nice and the and are each
given prosodic prominence to mark the coordinates as of equal status). Only the ordinary
case allows correlative both: It was both nice and not too expensive. Where the Y element
is an adverb, as in [ii] (or Take it nice and slowly), the difference in status is reflected
by a difference in syntactic category (adjective + adverb) – and thus only an idiomatic
interpretation is available.21
(b) Try / be sure and V
[32] plain form + plain form plain present + plain form
i a. Try and not be so touchy. b. We always try and do our best. [try]
ii a. Be sure and lock up. b. [not possible] [be sure]
This is very different, semantically and syntactically, from the ordinary use of and. Note
first that, unlike the clausal coordination We always try and we do our best, [ib] does not
entail that we do our best. Secondly, this idiomatic construction is syntactically restricted
so that and must immediately follow the lexical base try; this means that there can be no
inflectional suffix and no adjuncts: She always tries and does her best and We try hard and
do our best can only be ordinary coordinations. There are two forms that consist simply
of the lexical base: the plain form, as in [ia], and the plain present tense, as in [ib]. But the
verb following and is always a plain form, as is evident when we test with be: We always
try and be/∗are helpful. In spite of the and, therefore, this construction is subordinative,
not coordinative: and introduces a non-finite complement of try. And can be replaced by
the infinitival marker to, and being slightly more informal than to. Be sure works in the
same way as try, except that the lexical base of be is only the plain form, so this time there
is no plain present tense matching [ib]: We are always sure and do our best is not possible
as an example of this construction (and unlikely as an ordinary coordination). Because
the construction is subordinative, the across the board restriction does not apply: This
is something [that you must try / be sure and remedy].
21
The term ‘hendiadys’ is used for coordinations like [31], where the first coordinate is understood as
modifying the second. In attributive position the and is omitted but we can still discern a difference be-
tween the idiomatic meaning of I’d like a nice hot coffee (“nicely hot, nice by virtue of being hot”) and the
ordinary meaning of I’d like a large hot coffee (“a hot coffee that is large, i.e. a large serving of hot coffee”). With
good the range of second coordinates is very small and adverbs are restricted to words which also belong to
the adjective category, like hard in [31ii]. In the predicative adjective case nice can be replaced by such related
items as lovely and beautiful : It was lovely/beautiful and hot.
§ 2.2.4 Asymmetric constructions, II 1303
(c) Go and V
[33] i The TV has gone and broken down.
ii He went and told the teacher.
In this colloquial use of go the verb has lost its motional meaning and has a purely emotive
role. The propositional content of [i] is simply “The TV has broken down”, with go and
adding an overlay of disapproval, annoyance, surprise, or the like. He went and told the
teacher can be interpreted in the same way, or else literally, with go retaining its sense
of movement. In the idiomatic sense go must immediately precede and: He went to the
office and told the teacher, for example, can only have the literal movement interpretation.
Any inflectional form of go is possible, and the following verb must match: both past
participles in [i], preterites in [ii]. In this respect it is closer to coordination than the
try and construction, but again there is no across the board restriction: What a mess
he’s gone and made! Even more colloquial is the multiple coordination been and gone
and + past participle (He’s been and gone and told the teacher), which has only the emotive
idiomatic meaning.
(d) Sit (etc.) and V
[34] i They sat and talked about the wedding.
ii Don’t just stand there and watch.
The first verb here is a verb of posture/stance, most often sit, stand, or lie. These verbs also
take gerund-participials: They sat talking about the wedding. The latter is equivalent to
[i], but the more informal coordinative construction arguably gives greater prominence
to the talking; the sitting is backgrounded, and the impossibility of reversing the coor-
dinates (without a change of meaning) reflects the difference in prominence assigned to
them.
(e) Be an angel (etc.) and V
[35] i Be an angel and make me some coffee.
ii Would you be an angel and make me some coffee?
The two clauses here are of quite different pragmatic status: the second is the important
one, the first having a role comparable to an adjunct like kindly or please. The first term
allows for a range of alternatives to an angel: a dear, a good boy/girl, and so on. The
coordinates can be imperative clauses, as in [i], or VPs within a clause used with indirect
request force (Ch. 10, §9.6.1), as in [ii] – or in the reporting of a request: She asked me to
be an angel and make her some coffee.
2.2.4 Asymmetric constructions, ii: or (Hurry up or we’ll be late, etc.)

Condition: ‘X or Y ’ implicates “if not X, then Y’’
Or, like and, occurs in constructions with a conditional interpretation:
[36] i I’m leaving before the end or I’ll miss my train.
ii I left early or I would have missed my train.
iii Hurry up or we’ll be late.
iv Don’t do that again or you’ll be fired.
With or the implicated condition is obtained by negating the first coordinate: “If I don’t
leave before the end, I’ll miss my train”.22 In [ii] the implied conditional is of the remote
category, as indicated by the would have : “If I hadn’t left early I would have missed my
train”, implicating that I did leave early and didn’t miss my train. Again, modal necessity
will often figure in the first coordinate: I must leave before the end or I’ll miss my train; I
had to leave early or I would have missed my train. In [iii–iv] the conditional interpretation
provides a reason for complying with the directive given in the imperative: “Hurry up,
because if you don’t we’ll be late”; “Don’t do that again, because if you don’t not do
that again (i.e. if you don’t refrain from doing that again) you’ll be fired”. Note that [iv]
arrives via a different route at the same result as [28iii]. With or the second coordinate
is always presented as the less desirable alternative, and may be left unexpressed: Do as I
say, or else!
The pragmatic inequality between the clauses is again reflected syntactically in the
relaxation of the normal across the board requirement. In She hadn’t spoken to John,
[who had had to leave early or he would have missed his train], for example, the first clause
is relative but the second is not, and doesn’t allow the replacement of he by who.
The logical link between coordination and condition is more direct with or than with and :
“P or Q” says that one or other of the propositions is true, so if “P” isn’t, then “Q” must
be – “P or Q” entails “If not P, then Q”.
Numerical approximations: two or three

Or-coordinations like two or three, four or five, etc., are commonly used as approxi-
mations rather than sets of alternatives. I have three or four letters to write can be in-
terpreted literally as “I have either three or four letters to write (I’m not quite sure
which)” but it is more likely to be taken as an approximation, “I have a few letters to
write, something like three”.
When three and four are taken as alternatives, they can be reversed, but the approxi-
mation interpretation is possible only where the smaller number comes first. With NPs
we have a contrast between, say, a glass or two, an approximation, and one glass or two,
a set of alternatives. Three or so/thereabouts, “about three”, and the like can only be
irreversible approximations.23
2.2.5 Coordinator-marked reduplication (louder and louder, dozens and dozens)

An idiomatic use of and is found in intensifying reduplication:
[37] i The noise grew louder and louder. She felt more and more confident.
ii I laughed and laughed and laughed. I’ve told you about it again and again.
iii I made dozens and dozens of mistakes. It rained for days and days.
In [i] and joins inflectional comparatives (louder) or the marker more in analytic com-
paratives – and similarly less (He was showing less and less interest in his family). The
meaning here is “progressively more/less”. In [ii] we have verbs and adverbs, with the
reduplication conveying a high degree of continuity or repetition. Prepositions can work
22
Note that in deriving the conditional implicature of [i] we have changed I’m not leaving to I don’t leave : this
change reflects the different ways of referring to future time in conditionals and main clauses.
23
For the use of or to present a revision, see the discussion of supplements in §5.2 below.
§ 2.3 Both and either 1305
in the same way: It went up and up and up. In [iii] the reduplication is of nouns – measure
nouns – and serves to indicate a large number or amount.
Like coordination proper, this construction allows an indefinite number of elements –
but all except the first must be marked by and (thus not ∗I laughed, laughed, and laughed ).
Usually the reduplicated items are words, so we do not have ∗She felt more confident and
more confident or ∗It rained for many days and many days. An exception is seen in She
hit him and hit him and hit him, but him is little more than a clitic here, and a lex-
ical NP would not be possible: ∗She hit her attacker and hit her attacker and hit her
attacker.24
2.3 Both and either

The determinatives both and either function in the structure of NPs or of coordina-
tions:
[38] i a. both players b. both Kim and Pat
ii a. either player b. either Kim or Pat
In the NPs [ia/iia] they function as determiner, as described in Ch. 5, §§7.2, 7.7. In
the coordinations [iia/iib] they function as marker of the first coordinate in correlative
coordination: both is paired with and, while either is paired with or.25
Binary and multiple coordination

In NP structure both and either are restricted to sets of just two members: compare
both/either of her parents and ∗both/∗either of her three children. In coordination, both is
similarly restricted, occurring in constructions with just two coordinates, but either is
used in multiple as well as binary coordination. Compare:

[39] i a. The allegation was [both untrue and offensive].
[binary]
b. Everything he suggested was [either unobtainable or too dear].
ii a. ∗I [both locked the doors and set the alarm and informed the police.
b. I’ll either call out or bang on the door or blow my whistle.
[multiple]
The fact that the duality restriction is maintained with both but not with either can
plausibly be related to the fact that in NPs the duality feature is more explicit with both
than with either. Thus both playersitself denotes a set of two players, whereas either player
does not: it is singular, but involves selection from a set of two.
24
There are certain other cases where special interpretations are found with coordinator-marked reduplication.
One is the existential construction There are musicians and musicians : this implies that there are different
kinds of musicians, e.g. good musicians and bad musicians. Another involves or, as in Is it hot or is it hot?,
where the identity of the coordinates makes the choice a spurious one, so that the question is rhetorical,
conveying emphatically that it is hot. Similarly You can have pork or pork or pork draws attention, usually with
humorous intent, to the absence of any alternative to pork. A comparable effect can be achieved with and: The
three most important things in real estate are location, location, and location. These differ from the intensifying
reduplication of [37] in that they are a matter of word play, involving implicatures deriving from the ordinary
meaning of and and or.
25
Both is occasionally found with other linking items than and, such as as well as (§2.8), along with (§2.9), yet
(§2.10). Either also belongs to the category of adverbs, and as such serves as a connective adjunct, as in Kim
didn’t go and Pat didn’t, either.
Distributional restrictions on correlative coordination

Correlative coordination is considerably more restricted in its distribution than the
default non-correlative coordination.
(a) Largely excluded from position following a pre-head dependent
[40] i ∗It had been approved by [the both federal and state governments].
ii ∗Your speech must be [very either witty or brief ].
The inadmissible correlative coordinations (underlined) are here located after the de-
pendent the in NP structure and after the dependent very in AdjP structure. The un-
grammaticality can be removed by dropping either the or both from [i], very or either
from [ii].26
(b) Both (unlike either) can’t be used before first coordinate in main
clause coordination
[41] i ∗Both he overslept and his bus was late.
ii Either he overslept or his bus was late.
(c) Both excluded from joint coordination
[42] i Both Kim and Pat are happy. [distributive]
ii ∗Both Kim and Pat are a happy couple. [joint]
Both is also excluded from examples like I want to see Kim and no-one else / Kim and
only Kim, where the second coordinate serves to exclude everyone other than Kim.
(d) Either excluded from alternative questions
[43] i Are they coming on either Monday or Tuesday?
ii ∗Are you either coming or not?
Example [i] can only be a polar question, one with Yes and No as answers, while [ii] is
simply inadmissible.
(e) Generally excluded from coordinations with asymmetric and and or
Both and either tend to emphasise the equality of the coordinates and hence do not in
general combine with the asymmetric uses of and and or described in §§2.2.3–4 above.
As we noted, The coffee is both nice and hot is not possible except as an ordinary
coordination, assigning two separate properties to the coffee, and He has both gone
and told the teacher likewise has only a literal interpretation. In He both got up and
had breakfast and I both fell off the ladder and broke my leg the both is unexpected, and
calls into question the temporal sequence and consequence implicatures of the versions
without both. Similarly either two or three can’t be used as an approximation like two
or three, but presents two alternatives. There is, however, one asymmetric use of or that
permits either in certain cases – the one where it has a conditional and directive inter-
pretation, as in Either you tidy your room or you lose your pocket money. The either here
reinforces the implicature (“Tidy your room!”) by emphasising that there is no third
alternative.
26
Under certain conditions correlative coordination is possible in this position: A similar [both very negative and
very positive] appraisal of the theoretical importance of such research may be found in Jones (1982) ; It was clearly
an [either misinformed or else simply malicious] suggestion.
§ 2.3 Both and either 1307
Either and the exclusiveness implicature

Either emphasises that one of the coordinates must obtain, and tends to strengthen the
exclusive implicature that only one of them does. I’ll be seeing her on either Friday or Sat-
urday conveys somewhat more strongly than the version without either that I’ll be see-
ing her on just one of these days. Exclusiveness nevertheless is still only an implicature:
They are obtainable at either Coles or Woolworths emphasises the choice but, like the ver-
sion without either, could readily be used in a context where they are obtainable at both
stores.27
Linear position of both and either

The usual position for both and either is at the beginning of the first coordinate, as in
all the above examples. They can, however, occur to the left of the basic position, as in
[44i], or to the right, as in [44ii]:
[44] i a. This was made clear both to [the men] [and their employers].
b. He was quite taken by either my [cheek][or cheerfulness].
c. They will either have to [reduce expenditure][or increase their income].
ii a. [He both overslept][and his bus was late].
b. Usually he [is either too busy to come with us][or else has no money].
c. We must prevent rapid changes [in either the mixed liquor][or in the effluent].
The coordinates are enclosed in brackets, and the markers underlined. With placement
to the left, the coordinator is separated from the first coordinate; with placement to the
right (which is less common, especially with both) it occurs non-initially within it. The
most frequent cases involve constructions containing a preposition, as in [44ia/iic], or a
determiner, as in [44ib].
Placement in these non-basic positions is quite common, particularly with either,
though usage manuals tend to regard it as stylistically undesirable. In some cases,
it is the only possibility other than omission or reformulation. This is so in [44iia]:
the version with both at the beginning of the first coordinate is the ungrammati-
cal [41i] above. Similarly in [44ib] placement of either before cheek gives ∗my either
cheek or cheerfulness, which violates constraint (a) above. Placement in non-basic po-
sition here can be avoided by repeating the determiner: either my cheek or my
cheerfulness.28
By virtue of their ability to occur elsewhere than before the coordinate, both and
either are clearly distinct from the coordinators. Given the relationship with the NP
constructions shown in [38], we analyse them as determinatives which can realise the
same function as coordinators. In some cases the position of the determinatives matches
that of modifiers in clause structure: compare It [will both solve the present problem][and
may also prevent future conflict], where both follows the auxiliary verb, like the modifier
in It will probably solve the present problem.
27
An explicitly inclusive either is found in this attested (but surely ungrammatical) example with and/or: ∗The
majority of the manufacturing firms were engaged in importing, either of materials and components for use in
production and/or final goods to complement their product range.
28
In I always find myself next to some oaf who either overflows onto my seat or who talks endlessly about his
hideous life the non-basic position can be avoided only by omitting the second who, for a further restric-
tion on correlative coordination is that the initial marker cannot precede a relative clause.
The tree structure we propose for both to the men and their employers in [44ia] is:
[45]
PP
Prenucleus: Head:
Di PP
Head: Comp:
Prep NP-coordination
NP NP

GAPi NP Coordinator NP
both to –– the men and their employers
The marker for the first coordinate is realised by a gap that is co-indexed with the determinative
both that occupies prenuclear position in the PP – compare the structure given for a relative
clause in Ch. 12, §3.1. In [44iia] both occurs in prenuclear position in the VP both overslept,
and is co-indexed with the marker element to the left of he.
2.4 Neither and nor

Neither as determinative and adverb
The determinative neither, like both and either, functions as a determiner in NP structure
or as a marker in correlative coordination:
[46] a. neither player b. neither Kim nor Pat
In addition, it is an adverb functioning as connective adjunct in clause structure, like
either :

[47] i She wasn’t impressed, (and ) I wasn’t either.
[either/neither as adverbs]
ii She wasn’t impressed, (and ) neither was I.
Example [ii] is related to [i] by the incorporation of the negative into the connective
adverb; like other pre-subject negatives neither here triggers subject–auxiliary inversion.
Neither differs from either in occurring in front rather than end position, but this con-
struction is still clearly distinct from that of [46b] because of the possibility of having
the coordinator and or but before it. That this neither is not a marker of coordination is
also evident from the fact it can connect a main clause to a subordinate one: If you don’t
complain, then neither will I.
Neither as marker of coordination

As a marker of coordination, neither is usually paired correlatively with nor.29 It can
occur (like either) in multiple as well as the more usual binary coordination, and (like
29
Examples are also found where neither is paired with or, as in She was restrained by neither fashion or conformity
or The Supreme Court’s most recent affirmative-action decision is neither startling or new. Usage manuals generally
recommend nor, but there is no doubt that or is an established alternant.
§ 2.4 Neither and nor 1309
both) it cannot occur initially in a coordination of main clauses:

[48] i She found it [neither surprising nor alarming]. [binary]
ii He was [neither kind, handsome, nor rich]. [multiple]
iii ∗Neither did he oversleep nor was his bus late. [main clause coordination]
Position of neither
Like both and either, neither can occur to the left or right of its basic position:
[49] i This serves the interests neither of [producers] [nor consumers].
ii [We are neither trying to keep out immigrants,] [nor are we favouring the well-to-
do].
Example [i] is again less favoured than of neither producers nor consumers (or neither
of producers nor of consumers). The position of neither in [ii], however, is obligatory in
view ofthe ungrammaticality of ∗Neither are we trying to keep out immigrants, nor are we
favouring the well-to-do (cf. [48iii]), but such structures are usually avoided in favour of
subclausal coordination (We are [neither trying to keep out immigrants] [nor favouring
the well-to-do]).
Nor as coordinator
Nor appears as a coordinator paired correlatively with neither ([50i]), or non-correlatively
as a variant of or in negative contexts ([50ii]):
[50] i a. [Neither Jill nor her husband ]could help us.
b. A good conversationalist talks [neither too much nor too little].
ii a. The change won’t be [as abrupt as in 1958 nor as severe as in 1959].
b. No state shall have a share [less than 50% nor more than 70%].
c. Serious art is not [for the lazy, nor for the untrained].
In [ii] nor could be replaced by or, which is much more common: the version with nor
perhaps gives added emphasis to the negation. There is no possibility of adding and
or but before nor here, and hence every reason to treat nor as a coordinator in [ii] as
well as in [i]. The difference is that in [i] all the coordinates are marked as negative,
whereas in the non-correlative [ii] the first coordinate (as abrupt as in 1958, etc.) is not
marked as negative within the coordination itself, but falls within the scope of a preceding
negative.
Nor with subject–auxiliary inversion

The following non-correlative use of nor differs from that in [50ii] in that nor is not here
replaceable by or :
[51] i The Germans haven’t yet replied; nor have the French.
ii He didn’t attend the meeting, nor was he informed of its decisions.
iii He was one of those people who can’t relax. Nor did he have many friends.
iv The hotel had good views and a private beach; nor were these its only attractions.
In this use nor introduces a clause (normally a main clause) and triggers subject–
auxiliary inversion. Some speakers allow a preceding and or but (cf. %The Germans
haven’t yet replied and nor have the French), so that for them nor here is a connective
adverb, like the neither that could replace it (. . . and neither have the French). For many,
however, this nor cannot combine with and and but,30 and hence is again best regarded
as a coordinator, though it very often occurs in sentence-initial position, as in [51iii].
This use also differs from that in [50ii] with respect to polarity. In [50ii] the first
coordinate is within the scope of a negative; in [51] the first clause is usually negative,
as in [i–ii], but in relatively formal style it need not be. In [iii] the first clause contains
a negative but it is within the subordinate clause: the main clause itself is syntactically
positive, though it has an obvious negative entailment, “He couldn’t relax”. In [iv],
however, the first clause is completely positive.
Analysis of neither and nor

All three of the following are logically equivalent:
[52] i She found it neither surprising nor alarming. (=[48i])
ii She didn’t find it either surprising or alarming.
iii She found it both not surprising and not alarming.
(The subclausal coordination in [iii] is in turn equivalent to clausal She didn’t find it surprising
and she didn’t find it alarming.) It is tempting to analyse [i] as related to [ii] by the incorporation
of the negative into either . . . or, reflecting the transparent morphological structure of neither
as n + either and nor as n + or. This matches the analysis suggested for the adverb neither in
[47]. The only difference is that while there is only one negative in [52ii], in [52i] the negative
appears in both coordinates – but this could be regarded as a kind of negative agreement.
However, while the semantic analysis of nor as “not-or” is perfectly consistent with [50],
it does not cater for all the cases of nor seen in [51]. It would be possible to regard [51i–ii] as
negated disjunctions (“It isn’t the case either that the Germans have replied or that the French
have”), but a paraphrase like this is not possible in [51iii–iv], because the first clauses here are
positive, as we have seen. It appears then that under the influence of the equivalence between
negated disjunction and conjunction of negatives, nor has been reanalysed as “and-not”, or
“also-not”.
2.5 But
But belongs to several categories: it is a coordinator in He tried but failed, a preposition
in I couldn’t have done it but for your help, an adverb in He is but a child, a noun in Let’s
have no more buts. We focus here of course on but as a coordinator, but we will see at the
end of the section that the distinction between coordinator and preposition uses is not
sharply drawn.
Adversative coordination
As a coordinator but characteristically has an adversative meaning, indicating a contrast
between the coordinates:
[53] i Kim left at six but Pat stayed on till noon.
ii My parents enjoyed the show but I didn’t like it at all.
iii He wasn’t [at all arrogant but on the contrary quite unassuming].
iv He has [many acquaintances but few friends].
v She likes [not only opera but also chamber music].
30
This is particularly so in AmE, but in other varieties too we find coordinator + neither much more often than
coordinator + nor.
§ 2.5 But 1311
Here we have a direct contrast between Kim’s departure time and Pat’s, between my
parents’ reaction to the show and mine, and so on. Note that the coordinates differ in
two respects: [i] Kim vs Pat, six vs noon; [ii] my parents vs me, enjoy vs not like; [iii]
arrogant vs unassuming, positive vs negative; [iv] many vs few, acquaintances vs friends;
[v] opera vs chamber music, negative vs positive.
A single difference is sufficient if it is located in a predicative or modifying element,
but hardly otherwise:
[54] i She loved her husband but betrayed him. [predicator]
ii He was [rich but very mean]. [predicative comp]
iii He had a [demanding but low-paid ] job in the public service. [modifier]
∗
iv She likes opera but (she likes) chamber music. [object]
In the above examples the contrast is derivable very directly from the content of
the coordinates: from the grammatical opposition of positive vs negative, or lexical
oppositions like rich vs mean, opera vs chamber music, and so on. More often it is derived
indirectly, via various assumptions and inferences:
[55] i He called round at Jill’s, but she was out.
ii She was in considerable pain but insisted on chairing the meeting.
iii She likes opera but (she likes) chamber music too.
In [i] we will assume that he called at Jill’s with the aim of seeing her: her being out
made this impossible, so we have a contrast between intention and actuality. Example
[ii] illustrates a broad category of cases where the second coordinate contrasts with
what one would or might expect on the basis of the first: if she was in considerable
pain one might have expected her not to chair the meeting. In [iii] we have an explicit
opposition between opera and chamber music, but we have noted that this is not sufficient
(cf. [54iv]). The too introduces another implicit difference: She likes opera on its own
might be pragmatically interpreted as “That’s all (the only type of music) she likes”, and
too serves to deny that possibility, so that [55iii] entails [53v].
In general, but conveys “and” together with some further, non-propositional, mean-
ing – commonly an adversative meaning such as we find in the connective adverbs
nevertheless, however, yet. Thus [55ii], for example, might be paraphrased: She was in
considerable pain and yet insisted on chairing the meeting. Such cases also allow para-
phrases with subordinative although: Although she was in considerable pain she insisted
on chairing the meeting. In some cases, such as [55iii], the implicit relation is “moreover”:
compare She likes opera and moreover she likes chamber music too (similarly with the co-
ordinate negatives, Kim hadn’t read it, but Pat hadn’t either). Neither a “nevertheless” nor
a “moreover” relation applies in cases like [53iii], where the second proposition entails
the first (when negated, as here) and adds relatively little to it – compare similarly He
didn’t go to work yesterday but stayed at home all day – the relation here might be expressed
by instead. Where, as in these two examples, the contrast is so sharp, it is barely possible
to replace but by and + connective adverb.
Other cases which resist substitution of and + adverb are illustrated in:
[56] i I would have gone, but I was too busy.
ii You may not believe this/it, but I usually keep the house quite tidy.
iii I’m sorry but you’ll have to do it again.
iv He said it was your fault, but then he would say that, wouldn’t he?
Example [i] illustrates the preventative use of but : the situation expressed in the second
coordinate prevents the realisation of the one hypothetically entertained in the first –
my being too busy prevented my going (compare the remote conditional construction I
would have gone if I had not been too busy). In [ii], the first coordinate contains a pronoun
anaphoric to the second: this/it is interpreted as “that I usually keep the house quite tidy”.
We call this anticipatory anaphora: the pronoun precedes its antecedent. This kind of
anaphora is sanctioned by but, but not and (Ch. 17, §2.4). Example [iii] is similar except
that the anaphoric relation is implicit: we understand “sorry to say this” or the like. But
then in [iv] is idiomatic: it is used to indicate that what precedes is not surprising.
Restriction to binary structures

Unlike and, but is restricted to binary coordination:
[57] i Kim is Irish but Pat is Welsh.
ii ∗Kim is Irish but Pat is Welsh but Jo is Scottish.
Dropping the first but in [ii] would make the example marginally acceptable, but it
would be interpreted as a layered structure: the first two clauses would form an asyndetic
coordination, so that Jo’s being Scottish would be contrasted with the other two being
Irish or Welsh.
Emphatic reaffirmation
But is occasionally used for emphatic effect with a repeated phrase:
[58] Nothing, but nothing, will make me change my mind.
The meaning is “absolutely nothing”. The repeated expresssion is generally a negative,
though we also find adjectives, particularly if they denote extreme values on a scale: It
was perfect, but perfect.
But with the sense “except’’: preposition vs coordinator

[59] i a. Everyone but Jill was told. b. ∗But Jill, everyone was told.
ii a. Everyone but %I/ %me was told. b. Everyone was told but me.
But here has the same meaning as the preposition except, suggesting that it too is a
preposition. It differs syntactically from except, in that it can’t occur initially, as shown
in [ib]: in this respect it is like a coordinator – cf. property (d) of §2.1. In [iia] both
nominative and accusative forms of the pronoun are found, and this suggests that but
can be construed as either a coordinator or a preposition. Following a coordinator, the
pronoun will take nominative case because it is part of the subject (cf. Neither Jill nor I
was told ); following a preposition it will take accusative case (cf. Everyone except / with
the exception of me was told ). In They told everyone but me the accusative is obligatory,
but provides no evidence as to the structure since a coordinate pronoun in this position
would also be accusative (They told neither Jill nor me). Accusative is much the more usual
case in [iia], with nominative very formal in style, and very much a minority variant: for
most speakers but in this sense is a preposition. Notice, moreover, that in [iib], where
but + pronoun is postposed, a nominative is virtually excluded even for speakers who
have one in [iia]: it seems that in this position but is construed as a preposition by just
about all speakers.
§ 2.6 Not 1313
2.6 Not
‘X but not Y ’ and ‘not X but Y ’
Coordinates joined by but very often contrast as positive vs negative, or negative vs
positive:

[60] i a. Jill had been invited but her husband hadn’t.
[clausal coordination]
b. Jill hadn’t been invited but her husband had.
ii a. They had invited [Jill but not her husband ].
b. They had not invited [Jill but her husband ]. [subclausal coordination]
c. They had invited [not Jill but her husband ].
In clausal coordination the negation is expressed within one of the bare coordinates,
the clause her husband hadn’t in [ia], Jill hadn’t been invited in [ib]. With subclausal
coordination matters are more complex. In [iia] her husband is the bare coordinate, but
the marker, and not a modifier (not her husband does not constitute an NP: we can’t
have ∗Not her husband accompanied her, etc.). In [iib] the coordination is Jill but her
husband, so the negation is not expressed within the coordination itself. However, the
scope of the negative includes the first coordinate, but not the second: the meaning is,
therefore, “They hadn’t invited Jill but they had invited her husband”. This is also the
meaning of [iic], but here the not has been attracted into the coordination. We take not
to be part of the coordination because it could not appear in this position in a non-
coordinative construction (∗They had invited not Jill ). The object here is therefore not
Jill but her husband, with not a modifier expanding the first coordinate. Similar examples
are:
[61] i This is surely evidence [not of his guilt but of his innocence].
ii He married her [not because he loved her but because he was desperately lonely].
iii What she needs may be [not criticism, not advice, but simply encouragement].
When not appears in an initial coordinate in this way, it is paired with but in the second:
not . . . but is thus comparable to both . . . and, either . . . or, neither . . . nor. This might
suggest that not should be treated as a marker of correlative coordination, like both, ei-
ther, neither. The reason we don’t analyse it that way, but take it rather as a modifier, is
that the parallel with both, either, neither is only partial. This can be seen from [61iii],
where not is repeated. The coordination here is layered. The first layer has not criticism,
not advice as the first coordinate, and but simply encouragement as the second. The second
layer then consists of a further, asyndetic, coordination with not criticism and not advice
as coordinates. The fact that not can appear in a second coordinate and that and could
be inserted before it (not criticism, and not advice) shows that – unlike both, either, nei-
ther – not has not taken on the function of a marker of the initial coordinate in a correlative
construction.
‘X, not Y ’
It is possible to have ‘X, not Y’ without a but :
[62] i They had invited Jill, not her husband.
ii He died in 1984, not 1983.
The meaning is not quite the same as that of ‘X but not Y’. With [60iia] (They had invited
Jill but not her husband) we understand that they might in principle have invited both
Jill and her husband, but in fact did not do so. In [62i], however, the issue is which of Jill
and her husband it was that they invited. This is why it would be anomalous to add but
to [ii]: it is not in principle possible for him to have died in both years.
2.7 Not only

‘Not only X but Y ’
A special case of negative + positive coordinations with but involves not only ; but is often
accompanied by also, as well, or too :
[63] i Our correspondents cover [not only this country but the whole world ].
ii He [not only never went to school, but never even learned to read ].
iii Not only was he incompetent, but he was also corrupt.
Position of not only
Not only is often found to the left or right of its basic position, like both, either, and
neither :
[64] i a. He not only knew [soldiering][but history and literature as well ].
b. They had given copies not only to [the staff ][but the students too].
c. It is not only a question [of honour][but of life and death].
ii a. [Complete power not only corrupts][but it also attracts the mad].
b. He [had not only photocopied it ][but had even read it].
c. Religion offers the best rewards to those [who not only abide by its norms] [but
who engage in good works].
Like not on its own, however, not only can be repeated in layered coordination:
[65] Practice among authorities varies [not only on the question of the parental means scale,
not only in the way they assess parental incomes, but in the amounts which they give].
It thus functions as a modifier, not a marker of correlative coordination. The location of not
only then simply reflects the range of positions available to focusing adverbs like only.
‘Not only X, Y ’
Where but introduces a main clause, it is omissible:
[66] i Not only was he incompetent, he was also corrupt. (cf. [63iii])
ii Complete power not only corrupts, it also attracts the mad. (cf. [64iia])
iii She said that he was not only ill, he was also penniless.
It is questionable whether this construction is a case of asyndetic coordination or simply one
of juxtaposition. It differs from clear cases of coordination in that it cannot be subordinated:
∗
Since not only was he incompetent, he was also corrupt, they regarded him as a total liability.
The second clause thus has to be a main clause, although the clause containing not only may
be a subordinate one, as in [66iii]. From a syntactic point of view it is unclear whether he was
penniless here enters into construction with that he was not only ill (as suggested by the not
only . . . also pairing) or with she said that he was not only ill (as suggested by the fact that this
is the only other main clause).
§ 2.8 Expressions based on comparison 1315
Three emphatic variants of ‘X and Y ’:

[67] i He was both incompetent and corrupt. [‘both X and Y’]
ii He was incompetent but also corrupt. [‘X but also Y’]
iii He was not only incompetent but also corrupt. [‘not only X but also Y’]
All of these entail He was incompetent and corrupt. All emphasise the separateness
of the coordinates: none of the three constructions can be used with the joint co-
ordination of §1.3.2 (∗Both Kim and Pat are a happy couple; ∗Kim and also Pat are a
happy couple ; ∗Not only Kim but also Pat is/are a happy couple). In addition, [i] em-
phasises the equality of the coordinates; [ii] contrasts the coordinates and may sug-
gest that there is something unexpected about the second; [iii] highlights the second
coordinate at the expense of the first, which tends to be backgrounded. Note, then,
that [iii] is the most likely of the three in a context where his incompetence is old
information.
Alternative forms
Simply, solely, merely can substitute for only in all the above. Just is also possible, except
that not just does not occur in clause-initial position (∗Not just was he incompetent, . . .),
or pre-verbally (∗He not just knew soldiering, . . .).
Alternation with verbal negation

Where not only/simply/solely/merely precedes a tensed lexical (i.e. non-auxiliary) verb,
we have alternation with the do-support construction. Corresponding to [64ia/iia], for
example, we have:
[68] i He did not only know soldiering but history and literature as well.
ii Complete power doesn’t only corrupt, but it also attracts the mad.
Here the negation is associated syntactically with do rather than with only. In [63–64], by
contrast, we take not and only to form a single syntactic element.31 This is particularly clear
in cases like [63iii], where neither not nor only could appear without the other: compare ∗Not
was he incompetent and ∗Only was he incompetent.
2.8 Expressions based on comparison (as well as, rather than, etc.)
Comparative constructions bear a significant resemblance to coordination in that they
may relate syntactically like terms from a wide range of categories:
[69] i He was [more sad than angry]. [predicative Adjs]
ii He presented [not so much rational as emotional]arguments. [attributive Adjs]
iii His success was due [less to his own efforts than to his father’s]. [PPs]
iv I’d [rather resign than accept such humiliation]. [infinitival VPs]
31
Examples where the not immediately follows an auxiliary verb, as in [64ic/iib], are structurally indeterminate
as to whether not belongs with only or with the verb (as it does in the inflectional negatives It isn’t only a
question of honour but of life and death and He hadn’t only photocopied it but had even read it). Another place
where not and only do not combine into a single element is where only appears at the end of its coordinate:
Racial discrimination is not about racist discrimination only but also about the oppression of one racial group by
another.
In these examples the comparative meaning is clearly in evidence, and we analyse them in
terms of the grammar of comparison described in Ch. 13, with than and as prepositions
that function as head of comparative complements. There are some cases, however, where
the literal comparative meaning is bleached away, yielding expressions that resemble
coordinators.32
As well as
The literal use of as well as is seen in comparisons of equality like He played as well as
he’d ever done. Here well is an adverb heading the underlined phrase, an adjunct of
manner. There is also an idiomatic use meaning approximately “and, in addition to”,
illustrated in:
[70] i a. She [means what she says] [as well as says what she means].
b. [Abstraction][as well as impressionism]were Russian inventions.
c. [Both increasing ewe liveweight,][as well as liveweight at mating,] influence ovu-
lation rate and lambing performance.
ii a. [Beauty] [as well as love]is redemptive.
b. He will have, [as well as the TV stations,][a book publishing empire].
c. I met her father, [whom] she had invited along [as well as her college friends].
d. She [has experience in management], [as well as being an actor of talent].
In [i] as well as behaves like the coordinator and. In [ia] it links two finite VPs, a property
characteristic of coordinators: cf. property (c) of §2.1. Note in this connection that while
She plays the piano as well as the violin (with paired NPs) is ambiguous between a literal
meaning (“as proficiently”) and the idiomatic one (“and”), She plays the piano as well
as sings lieder (with paired finite VPs) has only the idiomatic meaning. In [ib] the form
were indicates that the subject NP is plural, just like abstraction and impressionism. And
in [ic] we have not only such plural agreement, but also a correlative pairing of both with
as well as instead of the usual and.
In [70ii], by contrast, as well as behaves markedly differently from a coordinator. In
[iia] the 3rd person singular verb-form is indicates that this time the subject is singular:
is agrees with beauty, so that as well as love is treated syntactically as an adjunct, not a
coordinate. In [iib] as well as the TV stations precedes a book publishing empire, making it
clearly an adjunct. And could not appear in the position as well as has here: cf. property (d)
of §2.1. In [iic] relativisation has applied to just one of the bracketed constituents, contrary
to coordinator property (e). And in [iid] the bracketed constituents are syntactically
unlike, the first being a finite VP, the second a gerund-participial, contrary to coordinator
property (b). Note that order reversal is possible in [iid] (As well as being an actor of talent,
she has experience of management), but not in [ia] (∗As well as says what she means, she
means what she says).
We must conclude that idiomatic as well as can be construed syntactically in two
ways, introducing an element that is either coordinate (as in [70i]) or subordinate
32
A similar pairing of a range of syntactically like terms is found with if and though (especially in combination
with not): He has read most if not all of her novels ; This would minimise if not eliminate the problem ; Several
highly confidential, though not top secret, messages were intercepted. Here, however, reversal is quite generally
possible, making the construction more clearly subordinative: He has read, if not all then certainly most, of her
novels.
§ 2.8 Expressions based on comparison 1317
(as in [ii]). In the former case, we take it to have been reanalysed as a compound
coordinator. In the latter case there has been no such syntactic reanalysis, and here as
well as does not form a constituent. This is evident from the fact that as well can occur
on its own: compare Beauty is redemptive and love is as well. In [iia], then, the second
as is a preposition taking the NP love as its complement, and the whole PP as love is
an indirect complement in the AdvP as well as love. Similarly for the other examples
in [ii].
As a coordinator, as well as is restricted to subclausal coordination: She plays the piano
as well as she sings lieder, for example, has only the literal comparative interpretation.
Even as a coordination, ‘X as well as Y’ differs from ‘X and Y’ in that the second term
is backgrounded: Y often expresses information that is discourse-old, i.e. familiar from
the prior discourse.
Rather than
The primary sense of rather is seen in [69iv] above, I’d rather resign than accept such
humiliation. Here it is an adverb with a comparative meaning: approximately “more
readily, in preference to”. There are also uses where this meaning is largely or wholly
lost – a change facilitated by the fact that the morphological base rath· no longer occurs
without the ·er suffix. Like as well as, rather than may introduce a constituent that is
syntactically coordinate or subordinate. Compare:
[71] i a. In the end he [survives][rather than conquers].
b. The dilemma has [deepened][rather than been resolved].
c. Wisdom and folly are [moral][rather than intellectual]categories.
ii [Rather than individual security]it is [the security of an ideological group] that
is basic.
In [i] rather than links finite VPs, past-participials, and attributive adjectives, and it is
plausible to suggest that it, like as well as, has been reanalysed as a coordinator. The
meaning of coordinative ‘X rather than Y ’ is “X, not Y ”. In [ii], however, rather than
cannot be a coordinator because of its position: there is no reason to postulate reanalysis
here, and we take the first bracketed phrase to be an adjunct, with the adverb rather
as its head. Note that such fronting of ‘rather than Y’ is not possible in [i]. Compare
[ia] in this respect with the clearly non-coordinative They obeyed the order rather than
suffer torture or death. Here the underlined constituents are not syntactically alike (the
first being finite, the second non-finite), and fronting is permitted: Rather than suffer
torture or death they obeyed the order. In this case, unlike [71], rather has its comparative
“in preference to” meaning.33
‘Not so much X but Y ’

The similarity between comparison and coordination is reflected in the not infrequent
blending of comparative ‘not so much X as Y’ and coordinative ‘not X but Y’ :
[72] Insofar as science generates any fear, it stems [not so much from scientific prowess
and gadgets] [but from the fact that new unanswered questions arise].
33
A less frequent variation of ‘X rather than Y’ is ‘rather X than Y’: I rather sensed them than saw them.
Much less, still less

These are found in non-affirmative contexts within a final coordinate. They occasionally
combine with and and hence (by virtue of coordination property (f), §2.1) are not
themselves coordinators, but function as modifiers:
[73] i She was prettier than he had any right to [hope for,][much less expect].
ii The conference decisions did not reflect the opinions of [the majority of party mem-
bers][and still less the party’s supporters in the country].
2.9 Expressions of addition, inclusion, etc. (including, instead of , plus, etc.)

In addition to, including, instead of, along with
Such expressions bear some resemblance to coordinators in that they can link phrases
in a considerable range of functions ([74i]) and of syntactic categories ([74ii]):
[74] i a. [Friends from Limpsfield,][in addition to the villagers,]came to the party.
b. They got [free milk and free meat][in addition to their wages].
c. I was subjected to [crippling fines,][in addition to usurious interest on unpaid
debts].
ii a. There is a need to provide [special,][including institutional,]treatment as well.
b. She might have turned it [full]on [instead of faintly].
c. She would make him [stand face-to-wall in a corner][instead of stay in after
school ].
The first term is subject in [ia], object in [ib], complement of a preposition in [ic]. These
constructions are nevertheless clearly not coordinative in that the PP can be moved
to front position, or to the position before the term to which it is linked (They got,
in addition to their wages, free milk and free meat). The similarity with coordination is
greater in [ii], where the order cannot be changed in this way. Such examples provide
some evidence for suggesting that including and instead of – like as well as and rather
than – have a use where they are reanalysed as marginal members of the coordinator
category.34
Plus
This is another item that straddles the boundary between prepositions and coordinators:
[75] i Each boy’s parents pay [$2,000 a term in fees,] [plus extras].
ii [The cost-billing system][plus other control refinements]has reduced the deficit.
iii [His stamina][plus his experience]make him unbeatable.
iv The committee consists of [two staff ][plus four students][plus the secretary].
v [He spoke with a funny accent] [plus he wore socks with his sandals].
Plus is predominantly followed by an NP, making it more like a preposition than
a coordinator.35 Examples like [v], where it introduces a main clause, are restricted to
34
Compare also this example where along with is paired with both in a correlative coordination: They emphasise
the keeping of both the old covenant with its food laws, cultural traditions, circumcision and sabbath keeping, along
with the new covenant. This can hardly be regarded as an established construction, but it does illustrate the
way in which the category of coordinators can extend beyond the clear-cut members.
35
It can also occur in phrase-final position: They were both forty plus; there is of course no question of a
coordination here.
§ 2.10 Connective adverbs 1319
informal style – a style where it has undoubtedly been assimilated to the coordinator
category.36 It differs from prototypical prepositions in that it does not permit fronting
(∗Plus other control refinements the cost-billing system has reduced the deficit) and only very
rarely occurs as head of a predicative complement (The electrical charge is plus, of course,
the initial pulse of current). ‘X plus Y’ tends to count as singular for agreement purposes,
as in [ii], but it is sometimes taken as plural, as in [iii] – in the singular case it is being
treated as a preposition, in the plural case as a coordinator. Example [iv] shows that it
occurs in multiple as well as binary structures, which also puts it with the coordinators.37
As a coordinator, however, it is largely if not wholly restricted to joining main clauses
or NPs.
Let alone, not to say

The wide range of categories they can link suggests that these idioms might be regarded
as marginal coordinators:38
[76] i Few people [have seen the document,][let alone know what’s in it]. [finite VPs]
ii His behaviour was in [questionable,][not to say downright bad]taste. [AdjPs]
2.10 Connective adverbs (so, yet, however, etc.)

So, in the sense “therefore, as a result”, and yet, “nevertheless”, appear in constructions
where they are very clearly distinct from coordinators, but they also have uses where the
resemblances are such that they may be regarded as marginal members of the coordinator
category.
Differences from coordinators

(a) Links between non-coordinate elements
[77] i The mill could be sold off, so providing much-needed capital.
ii He was gone, leaving her caught up to a pitch of excitement and ecstasy that was
yet perilously close to tears.
iii Certain this menace was only imaginary, he yet stared in fascinated horror.
Here so and yet are adverbs linking elements that are clearly not coordinate. In [i–ii]
the adverb links a subordinate clause to the matrix, while in [iii] it links the main
predication to the initial adjunct – compare also Though he was certain this menace
was only imaginary, he yet stared in fascinated horror, where yet is correlative with
though.
(b) Combination with coordinator
[78] i This may make the task seem easier and so increase self-confidence.
ii You can look as fit as a fiddle and yet feel quite listless.
36
This is particularly evident when it links imperative clauses, as in the advertiser’s Save $300.00 plus choose
$300.00 worth of free gifts.
37
This reflects its basic use in mathematics; in that register other operators such as minus and times behave in
the same way, and are perhaps also marginal members of the coordinator category.
38
Not to mention, though similar in meaning, can link unlikes (He is a four-star general, not to mention also being
president of the tiny country of Concordia) and can introduce an adjunct in front position (Not to mention other
things, every day I am under the pressure of my concern for all the churches).
Here it is and that marks the coordination relation: so and yet are thus modifiers within
the second coordinate (cf. property (f) of §2.1). So combines just with and, while yet
is also found with but and nor (He was created not exactly immortal, nor yet exactly
mortal ).
Similarities with coordinators

(a) Initial position
So and yet normally occupy initial position (save for the coordinator itself in examples
like [78]); in this respect they are closer to coordinators than to such adverbs of similar
meaning as therefore, consequently, nevertheless, however, etc., which readily occur in
central or end position. Compare: He therefore/∗so had to resign or The two speeches were,
however/?yet, very similar in content.39
(b) Occurrence as sole linking item in coordinative construction
Although so and yet can combine with a coordinator, as in [78], they much more often
occur without one:
[79] i [There was a bus strike on,][so we had to go by taxi ].
ii [The book was written ten years ago,][yet conditions are still the same].
In cases like these, so and yet are just about indispensable elements of the construction. If
we omit them the result is a mere juxtaposition of clauses rather than a coordination: it
would therefore be misleading to treat the constructions here as asyndetic coordination.
It is more plausible to analyse so and yet here as markers of coordination.
(c) Range of coordinates
Both so and yet can link finite VPs:
[80] i He [wanted to avoid the rush-hour][so took the early train].
ii He [worked for peace all his life,][yet sadly died by a gun].
In this respect they are like coordinators. But this use of so is quite infrequent: whereas
so on its own is much commoner than and so as a link between main clauses,40 the
reverse is the case with subclausal coordination. So can also link adjectives (It was an
untried, so rather risky, undertaking), but not NPs, subordinate clauses, non-finite VPs,
etc. (note, for example, that and is not omissible from [78i]). Yet, on the other hand, is
similar in meaning to the coordinator but, and occurs in a similar range of coordinative
constructions – for example:
[81] i A person [who has a master’s degree,][yet who has not taken education courses,] is
not permitted to teach in the public schools.
ii The speech was delivered in [simple][yet eloquent]words.
iii It was a proposal which [sickened ][yet fascinated ]me.
39
Yet occurs centrally in subordinative constructions such as [77ii–iii]. A rare example of central so is seen in: It is
found in the works of those who held the first chairs and lectureships when the monopoly on legitimate educational
theory shifted to universities about a century ago, and who so set the tone for modern contemporary studies – so
could not precede relative who here. Hence can occur centrally (They involve long computations and are not,
hence, very useful in practice), but is much less frequent in this position than therefore, etc.
40
Note that so can link main clauses of unlike type, as in It’ll be quite cold, so take plenty of warm clothing : it
would hardly be possible to add and here, and the clauses are clearly not of equal status pragmatically – the first
gives a reason for issuing or complying with the directive expressed in the second (compare the subordinative
construction Take plenty of warm clothing because it will be quite cold ).
§ 2.11 For, only, and resultative so + that 1321
Yet can link relative clauses, as in [i]; adjectives, as in [ii]; verbs, as in [iii], and so on. It
is thus syntactically somewhat closer to the coordinators than is so.41
2.11 For, only, and resultative so + that

As used in [82], these items fall at the boundary between coordinators and prepositions
(prepositions that take clausal complements, thus subordinating conjunctions in a tra-
ditional analysis). They lack the more positive features of each, so that their classification
remains problematic.
[82] i [He went to bed,][for he was exhausted ].
ii [I would have gone,][only I was too busy].
iii [The dust clogged their throats,][so that the women were always making ice water].
For is semantically quite close to the clearly subordinative because, but differs from it
syntactically. Only is replaceable by the coordinator but, or the preposition except (which
may take a content clause with the subordinator that: except that I was too busy). In
[82ii] only has a preventative interpretation: “being too busy prevented me from going”
(cf. [56i]), but it is also found with a limiting, excepting sense, as in He’s very like his
father, only he has blue eyes. Example [iii] has a resultative interpretation and is to be
distinguished from the purposive He left early [so that he would miss the rush-hour traffic],
which is clearly subordinative.
(a) Differences from coordinators

For, only, and resultative so +that lack most of the properties distinguishing prototypical
coordinators from prepositions with clausal complements.
No requirement of syntactic likeness
The clause following them cannot contain any internal marker of subordination whereas
the first clause can, which means that the two clauses may be syntactically unlike. Com-
pare, for example:
[83] i They’ve postponed the meeting till tomorrow, [which is a great nuisance] [for it
means that several members will be unable to attend ].
ii He said [that he would have gone,][only he had been too busy].
In [i] relativisation does not apply across the board: we have which in the first clause
but it in the clause following for, with for therefore relating syntactically unlike clauses.
Similarly for only in [ii]: one clause is marked by the subordinator that, but we cannot
insert that after only. Contrast here the behaviour of the coordinator but in He said [that
he would have gone,] [but that he had been too busy].
41
However, whose meaning is similar to that of yet and but, also has uses where it behaves like a coordinator
for speakers who accept such examples as: %Other services have been expanded to meet the need, however the
situation is still critical and Please note that the costs are correct, however are subject to change prior to final
payment. A further item similar in meaning to but is (al )though; in general this differs syntactically quite
sharply from but (cf. properties (d) and (e) of §2.1) and belongs to the category of prepositions taking a finite
clause as complement. It too, however, is sometimes found linking finite VPs, as in They both remembered
Jane, though rarely spoke of her. There is no possibility of fronting here (∗They both, though rarely spoke of Jane,
remembered her), and this too might be regarded as a marginal coordinative construction.
Restriction to binary constructions

They cannot appear in multiple coordinations like ‘X (and )Y and Z’. Compare:
[84] He went to bed, for he was exhausted, for he had been gardening all day.
This kind of example would generally be avoided on stylistic grounds, but it can only
be interpreted as a right-layered construction (cf. diagram [2b] of §2). The gardening
explains the exhaustion not, directly, the going to bed, so the scope of the first for is
he was exhausted, for he had been gardening all day. Unlike a coordinator in multiple
coordination, the first for cannot be omitted.
Restriction to finite clauses
Coordinators can link a wide range of categories but the present items can be followed
only by a finite clause. Note, for example, that while only can replace but in [56i], it differs
from but in not allowing a following VP: I would have gone, but/∗only was too busy. In the
case of so that in [82iii] the that is the subordinator that introduces declarative content
clauses.
(b) Differences from prototypical prepositions with clausal complements

They also differ significantly from prepositions such as if, because, purposive so
(+that).
Inability to occur in initial position
The order of the bracketed elements in [82] is irreversible. Contrast here for and because :
Because/∗For he was exhausted, he went to bed. Similarly, resultative ∗So that the women were
always making ice water, the dust clogged their throats may be contrasted with purposive
So that he would miss the rush-hour traffic he left early.
Inability to coordinate
The constituent formed by these items and the following clause cannot function as a
coordinate:
[85] i ∗He went to bed, [for he was exhausted ][and for he had to get up early next day].
ii ∗I would have gone [only I was too busy][and only I was short of money].
iii ∗The dust clogged their throats, [so that they quickly felt parched ][and so that the
women were always making ice water].
Again, this restriction does not apply to the clearly subordinative constructions with
because and purposive so.
The (a) properties make these items like prepositions, the (b) properties make them like
coordinators. On balance, we would favour putting them with the prepositions: in the
absence of positive coordinator properties the ability to link unlike elements, as in [83],
can hardly be reconciled with a coordinator analysis.42
42
In terms of their meaning, they are very different from prototypical cases of coordination since they express
relations that are clearly asymmetric. Nevertheless, for is traditionally classified as a coordinator – an analysis
that may reflect the fact that its translation equivalent in Latin belongs syntactically with the coordinators.
On a prepositional analysis, there is no need to treat so + that as a unit: that is simply the subordinator that
introduces the content clause complement of so. The that is, however, obligatory in this construction: in the
absence of that, so is the connective adverb discussed in §2.10.
§ 3 The range of coordination 1323
3 The range of coordination: what can be coordinated with what
3.1 Conditions on the distribution and form of coordinations

Coordinations can occur at almost any place in the structure of a sentence. As a first
approximation, we may put it as follows:
[1] If (and only if) in a given syntactic construction a constituent X can be replaced
without change of function by a constituent Y, then it can also be replaced by a
coordination of X and Y.
This may be illustrated by reference to sentence [2]:
[2] Kim wanted to take them.
Here to is a unique marker of the infinitival construction: it cannot be replaced by any
other word and hence not by a coordination. But all the other constituents in [2] allow
both simple and coordinative replacement. This is illustrated in [3] for the four words
other than to :
[3] a b c
i Kim Pat Kim and Pat wanted to take them.
ii wanted intended Kim wanted and intended to take them.
iii take keep Kim wanted to take and keep them.
iv them the others Kim wanted to take them and the others.
Column a gives the original word, b a simple replacement, and c the clause resulting
from substituting a coordination of a and b for the original word in [2]. Similarly for the
non-minimal constituents: take them can be replaced by give them to Pat and hence by
a coordination of this and the original – Kim wanted to take them and give them to Pat.
The possibility of layered coordination (§1.2) can now be seen to follow directly from
[1]. We can apply rule [1] to the coordination Kim and Pat in the c column of [3i]:
Kim and Pat can be replaced by Jill and Max and hence by a coordination of the two
coordinations, yielding the layered structure in Both Kim and Pat and Jill and Max wanted
to take them.
Rule [1] says that there must be no change in function when we make the replacement.
This condition excludes examples like:
[4] i ∗He left this morning and the room.
ii ∗She became and admired the best teacher in the university.
Example [i] is inadmissible because He left this morning has this morning as adjunct
whereas He left the room has the room as object. Similarly [ii] is excluded because the best
teacher in the university is predicative complement in She became the best teacher in the
university, but object in She admired the best teacher in the university.
Rule [1] does not require, however, that X and Y belong to the same category, and
hence allows for cases like He left this morning or just after lunch, where the first coor-
dinate is an NP, the second a PP. The major condition on coordination, then, is that
coordinates must be alike in function, they must stand in the same syntactic relation to
any surrounding material.
It is to be understood that when X is replaced by Y the meaning of other expressions in
the sentence remains unaffected. Take, for example, This excited her interest : if we replace
her interest by the children the meaning of excite is changed (from, roughly, “arouse” to
“stir up”), and hence such replacement doesn’t sanction the coordination #This excited
her interest and the children. Likeness of syntactic function must thus be accompanied
by likeness of semantic relation.43
The requirement that the coordinates must be alike in function is not quite as straightforward
as it might seem. Consider, for example:
[5] i a. Kim and Pat saw it. b. Kim saw it and Pat saw it.
ii a. Kim saw it. b. Pat saw it.
We cannot say that in [ia] Kim and Pat are functionally alike in that each is subject: it is the
whole coordination Kim and Pat that has the function of subject, not the separate coordi-
nates. The requirement must therefore be interpreted derivatively, by reference to the clausal
coordination [ib] or the related clauses shown in [ii]: here Kim and Pat are both subjects. But
it must be emphasised that we are not suggesting that [ia] is syntactically derived from [ib].
Such an analysis is out of the question because, as we have noted, subclausal coordination is
not always equivalent to clausal coordination: No buses were running or no trains were running
does not have the same meaning as No buses or trains were running. The relevance to [ia] of
[ib] is the same as that of [ii]: the subclausal coordination in [ia] is sanctioned by the fact that
[ib] and [ii] are well formed and have Kim and Pat in the same syntactic and semantic relation
to saw it.
As it stands, rule [1] is considerably oversimplified. We will list summarily here various
qualifications that must be made, and look in more detail at certain of them in subsequent
sections.
(a) Agreement
If in Kim underestimates herself we replace Kim by Kim and Pat we must adjust the items
which agree with Kim, giving Kim and Pat underestimate themselves. The subject Kim
and Pat is plural and the agreement must be clearly with it as a whole, not with one or
other of the bare coordinates. The interaction between coordination and agreement is
discussed in Ch. 5, §18.3.
(b) Likeness of category

Rule [1] requires that X and Y be alike in function, as noted above, but in some cases
there is a stricter requirement that they be alike in category. The clearest example is
that of infinitival and gerund-participial clauses, which cannot coordinate. The gerund-
participial subject in Cycling there would be dangerous can be replaced by the infinitival
to go on foot, but these cannot be joined in a coordination:
∗
[6] [Cycling there or to go on foot]would be dangerous.
Instead we need either To cycle there or to go on foot would be dangerous or else Cycling
there or going on foot would be dangerous, where the coordinates belong to the same
category. Cases where a difference of category is permitted are outlined in §3.2.
43
The requirement that the coordinates have the same syntactic and semantic relation to the context is sometimes
flouted for humorous effect, as in He lost his way and his temper or She was in the army and a difficult position.
This rhetorical device is known as syllepsis (or zeugma).
§ 3.1 Distribution and form of coordinations 1325
(c) Expanded coordinates

These cannot coordinate. In Kim or Pat should give the course we can replace or Pat by
and Max, but not by a coordination of these:
∗
[7] Kim or Pat or and Max should give the course.
To express this meaning we need to repeat Kim, giving Kim or Pat or Kim and Max.
(d) For, only, and resultative so

As noted in §2.11, we cannot coordinate phrases headed by these items, in the senses
discussed. This is the main property making them partially like coordinators, as the
deviance of [85] of §2.2 (∗He went to bed, for he was exhausted and for he had to get up
early next day, etc.) is comparable to that of [7] above.
(e) Grammaticised words

Words that are grammatically distinctive, e.g. by virtue of belonging to closed categories,
tend to coordinate less freely than open category ones. For example, we do not say ∗my
and this book (but rather my book and this book /one).We take up this issue in §3.3.
(f) Departures from strict functional likeness

We occasionally find minor and semantically motivated violations of the requirement
that coordinates be functionally alike, as in:
[8] i all and only the corrected copies [predeterminer + focusing modifier]
ii our and future generations [determiner + attributive modifier]
(g) Coordination of word-parts
In general, coordinates are whole words or larger expressions, hence the reference to
syntactic construction in [1]. But to a limited extent it is possible to coordinate parts of
words: 44
[9] i pro- and anti-marketeers pre- and post-war living conditions
ii the [four- and five-year-old ] boys red- or auburn-haired
Coordination of prefixes is found with a few pairs of opposite meaning, such as those in
[i], or inter· and intra·. Coordination of bases is well established with numerals and in
denominal adjectives formed by suffixation of ·ed (see Ch. 19, §5.8), as in [ii]; it is also
commonly found in compounds formed from past participles: Sydney- or Melbourne-
based companies.
(h) Joint coordination

Rule [1] does not allow for cases of joint coordination where one of the coordinates
cannot replace the whole coordination:
[10] i Kim and Pat are a happy couple. (=[17ii] of §1)
ii Kim and Pat are respectively scrupulously honest and an inveterate liar.
Example [ii] can be seen as following from the acceptability of Kim is scrupulously honest
and Pat is an inveterate liar, but this kind of solution is not available for [i]. Here we
44
Very occasionally one finds coordination between a word and a prefix: Please list all publications of which you
were the sole or co-author.
need to accept that an and-coordination of NPs can be used directly to enumerate the
members of a set.
(i) Lexicalised coordinations

We must also go beyond [1] to allow for fixed phrases like spick and span, to and fro, etc.
(§1.4).
(j) Special syntactic treatment of coordinates

Compare next:
[11] i a. %They invited Kim and I. b. ∗They invited I.
ii a. I need pen and paper. b. ∗I need pen.
In [ia] we have a nominative case pronoun where the corresponding non-coordinative
construction would require accusative me ; not all speakers accept examples like [ia], but
for the many who do the rules for case selection in coordinations are clearly not the same
as those applying elsewhere (cf. Ch. 5, §16.2.2). Similarly, [ii] shows that the normal rules
concerning the requirement of a determiner with count singulars are sometimes relaxed
in coordinations.45
(k) Avoidance of adjacency constraints

In such an example as They disagreed as to whether it should be allowed we could replace
whether by how often but not by to what extent, and yet a coordination of whether and to
what extent is perfectly possible:
[12] i ∗They disagreed as to to what extent it should be allowed.
ii They disagreed as to whether and to what extent it should be allowed.
Open interrogatives beginning with a preposition are hardly permissible as complements
to a preposition, especially when the prepositions are identical, as in [i]. But in [ii] the
prepositions are not adjacent, and hence there is nothing to rule out the to what extent
PP.46
3.2 Coordination of unlike categories

In the great majority of cases, coordinates belong to the same syntactic category, but
a difference of category is generally tolerated where there is likeness of function. This
section surveys the main functions allowing coordinations of this kind.
(a) Predicative complement

One of the most straightforward cases is the coordination of AdjPs, NPs, and PPs in
predicative complement function:
[13] i It was [extremely expensive and in bad taste]. [AdjP + PP]
ii He became [very forgetful and an embarrassment to his family]. [AdjP + NP]
45
Two other cases where a form is found in coordination that would not be permitted in a non-coordinate
construction are illustrated in Teachers have been uncertain how or if to incorporate grammar into the approach,
and It was a hilarious scene as fat and thin alike swooped, swayed, tripped, and fell. The interrogative subordinator
if which appears in the first of these cannot normally occur with an infinitival complement: ∗They have been
uncertain if to incorporate grammar into the approach. In the second the adjectives fat and thin are functioning
as fused modifier-head NPs, which would not be possible without the coordination.
46
This example also belongs under (f), since to what extent has adjunct function, but whether does not: it is
purely a marker of subordination and closed interrogative clause type.
§ 3.2 Coordination of unlike categories 1327
It is also possible to coordinate an AdjP, NP, or PP with a non-finite clause:

[14] i He’s [in love and behaving quite irrationally]. [PP + gerund-participial]
ii He is [known to have a gun and likely to use it]. [past-participial + AdjP]
iii This process [is perfectly natural and to be welcomed ]. [AdjP + infinitival]
Example [i] can be expanded to He’s in love and he’s behaving quite irrationally, where the
be of the second clause marks progressive aspect. Similarly [ii] can be expanded to He is
known to have a gun and he is likely to use it, where the first clause is passive. And expansion
of [iii] gives This process is perfectly natural and it is to be welcomed, where the second
coordinate contains quasi-modal be.47 The progressive and passive constructions can
themselves combine: He was living in the Latin Quarter and thought to have AIDS. Mixed
coordinations involving non-finites are much less usual than those in [13]: certainly in
the case of passives, the version where be is repeated will often be preferred or required,
as in He was invited but was unable to accept or He was insolent and was dismissed.
Coordinations like those in [14] are found only with be. Get can take an adjectival
predicative complement (He got insolent) and any of the three non-finites (He got going /
sacked / to see it) but these are all interpreted as different constructions, so that mixed
coordinations like ∗He got insolent and sacked are not acceptable. Similarly He kept awake
and He kept listening for her involve different uses of keep, so that we cannot have ∗He
kept awake and listening for her.
(b) Other complements, including subject

Where a head element can take different categories as complement (without a change in
sense), unlike coordinations are generally possible.
[15] i a. [The stamp purchases and how the cash float was administered ]were the subject
of prolonged questioning yesterday.
b. It lists [the value of assets and which partner owned them before the marriage].
c. He was sure [of himself and where he was going].
ii a. I remembered [reading about you in the papers and that you lived here in Wigan].
b. We were told [to wait in the terminal and that we would be informed when we
could reboard ].
iii a. They reported [a deep division of opinion between the government and the peo-
ple and that the African population was almost solid in its opposition to federa-
tion].
b. After [their rubber plantation failed, and her husband’s death on the Upper Rewa
in 1885], she maintained her three young children with a tiny store.
c. I was planning [a four-month trip across Africa and to then return to England ].
d.They believe [in the fall of man and original sin and that all mankind is de-
scended from a single couple].
e. The University provides a great opportunity [for adventures of the mind and to
make friendships that will last a lifetime].
f. They want to know [his financial arrangements in Italy and about the people he
met there].
47
Where be has a more centrally deontic interpretation, such coordination is not possible: we could not, for
example, omit the second you are from You are on duty and you are to remain in the guard-room until relieved.
The head is an adjective (sure) in [ic],48 a preposition (after) in [iiib], a noun (opportunity)
in [iiie], and a verb in the others – with the complement external (i.e. subject) in [ia]. The
examples in [i] illustrate what is probably the most common case, coordination of a finite
interrogative with an NP; the latter will then often express a ‘concealed question’ (Ch. 11,
§5.3), as in [ib] (the value of assets = “what the value of assets was”). The coordinations in
[ii] are of non-finite and finite clauses; this order is obligatory with gerund-participials
and almost so with infinitivals. A sample of other combinations are given in [iii]: NP +
declarative clause (with and without that), NP + infinitival, PP + declarative clause, PP
+ infinitival, NP + PP.
(c) Adjunct
No difficulty arises in coordinating different categories within the adjunct function,
including PPs with different kinds of complement (as in [iii] below, where the first PP
consists of because + clause, the second of for + NP):
[16] i She did it [slowly and with great care]. [adverb + PP]
ii I’ll do it [tonight or in the morning]. [NP + PP]
iii He’ll reject it [because it’s too long or for some other reason]. [PP + PP]
iv He signed on [to please his wife but with no hope of success]. [clause + PP]
(d) Modifier in NP structure

The most usual case involves post-head modifiers: PPs, AdjPs, participial clauses, and
finite clauses, as in [17i]. Mixed coordinations in pre-head (attributive) modifier position,
however, are not common. As illustrated in [17ii], they tend to involve adjectives and
nominals belonging within a single semantic set.
[17] i a. They still won’t recommend grants for people [over the age of 65 or who have
retired ].
b. She won in a match [interrupted by showers but which lasted under an hour].
c. A man [in singlet and shorts and wearing a green baize apron] finally appeared.
d. It would be an opportunity to do something [quite new for me and in which I
believed much more strongly than in our government’s economic policy].
ii a. the civic, school, and religious life of the community
b. the state and federal laws
c. the Australian and New Zealand flags
d. in [daily or evening newspapers]
The nominals school, state, New Zealand, evening are used here because there is no
corresponding adjective.
A final possibility is the coordination of pre- and post-head modifiers:
[18] The demise of the liberals has been [a long and complicated process but which now
looks as though it is fairly decisive].
This construction is comparatively rare: it would be more usual to drop the but, exp-
ressing the adversative relation between the adjuncts by a connective adjunct such as
however within the relative clause.
48
Strictly speaking there is indeterminacy as to whether the coordination is complement of sure (with the form
PP + clause) or of of (with the form NP + clause), for the non-coordinative version could be either he was
sure where he was going or He was sure of where he was going.
§ 3.3 Coordination of grammaticised words 1329
(e) Sentential coordinations

Finally there are coordinations which have no function within a larger construction but
constitute a sentence. Mixed coordinations here consist of a fragment and a clause:
[19] i Now I can only write, and that only when I get out of pain.
ii One more remark like that and I’m leaving.
In [i] that is a pro-clause, interpreted anaphorically as “I can write”; [ii] exemplifies the
implicit conditional construction discussed in §2.2.3.
3.3 Coordination of grammaticised words

We have noted that grammaticised words tend to coordinate less readily than others: in
this section we survey the coordination possibilities for the main kinds of grammaticised
word.
(a) Coordinators
The idiom and/or is an asyndetic coordination meaning “and or or”:
[20] a. They’re inviting [Kim and/or Pat]. b. They’re inviting [Kim or Pat].
We have seen (§2.2.1) that or on its own is characteristically associated with an imp-
licature of exclusiveness, so that [b] suggests they’re only inviting one of them: and/or
then serves to block this implicature, explicitly allowing for the situation where they
invite both Kim and Pat as well as that where they invite only one.
(b) Subordinators
The clause subordinators do not normally coordinate: for takes a different construction
from that and whether, and the latter two are simply markers of different clause types.
Whether, however, does coordinate with not or with an interrogative phrase in adjunct
function:
[21] i I don’t know [whether or not he saw her].
ii They must consider [whether and in what circumstances it should be allowed ].
Example [i] is equivalent to I don’t know whether he saw her or not (where or coordinates
a clause with a clause fragment), but whether or not is probably best handled as a fixed
phrase, a subordinator complex. Whether or no is sometimes found as a variant. In [ii]
we understand “and if so . . . ” (if so can be added as an adjunct to the second coordinate,
but is commonly omitted) – the order is therefore fixed. The likeness here is that both
elements are interrogative markers: only the first has a subordinating role.49 If cannot
substitute for whether in [i], and would be at best unidiomatic in [ii].
(c) Prepositions
These cover a considerable range on the scale of grammaticisation. At one extreme we
have uses where the preposition is fully determined by the head element and hence – in
accordance with [1] – cannot coordinate: I’ll give it to Kim ; the search for gold ; He’s intent
on revenge. At the other extreme, numerous alternatives are available and coordination
49
Because the marking of closed interrogatives is so different in subordinate and main clauses, there is no
analogue in main clauses of this kind of coordination: we would have to say Should it be allowed, and if so in
what circumstances?
is commonplace. This applies particularly in the areas of time and space, as in before
and after, above and below, at or near, etc.; it is much more difficult to find plausible
coordinations for such items as although or because, which take clausal complements.
Some coordinations have the character of fixed phrases: if and only if, if and when.50
(d) Determinatives
Coordination of quantifiers, especially with or, occurs freely: one or two mistakes,
three or more witnesses, little or no money, some or all applicants. The emphatic each and
every is a fixed phrase.51 But for the rest, determinative coordinations are compara-
tively rare, there being a preference for coordinating at NP level: this copy and those, for
example, is more likely than this and those copies.
(e) Auxiliaries
Certain coordinations of modals occur very readily: I can and will finish it ; He
must and will be punished. Perfect have and progressive be are unique markers of these
constructions and don’t coordinate with any other lexemes. Nor can passive be, even
though get is an alternative (non-auxiliary) marker of passive – there is no clear seman-
tic distinction between them to motivate a coordination (∗He was or got arrested ).
3.4 Coordination and genitives

We look first at constructions containing NPs other than personal pronouns, then at
coordinations of personal pronouns, and finally at mixed coordinations, i.e. those in-
volving a personal pronoun and an ordinary NP.
(a) NPs other than personal pronouns

There are three main types of coordination to distinguish:
[22] i [Kim and Pat’s]children [Type i: single genitive]
ii [Kim’s and Pat’s]children [Type ii: direct multiple genitive]
iii Kim’s children and Pat’s [Type iii: indirect multiple genitive]
In [i] we have Type i, the ‘single genitive’: there is a single marking of genitive case,
applying to the NP-coordination Kim and Pat as a whole. In the others, there is multiple
marking of genitive case. In [ii] the coordination is between the two genitive NPs them-
selves, i.e. Kim’s and Pat’s : this is Type ii, which we will call the ‘direct multiple genitive’.
In [iii] the coordination is between two NPs that are not themselves genitive but contain
genitive determiners, i.e. Kim’s children and Pat’s (equivalent to Pat’s children): this is
Type iii, the ‘indirect multiple genitive’.
Types i and ii are not semantically contrastive. Both allow either a joint or a distri-
butive interpretation of the genitive relation. In the joint interpretation of [22i–ii] the
matrix NP denotes the set of children who have Kim and Pat as their parents, while in the
50
This has some affinity with the coordination in [21ii]: in both cases the first coordinate cancels the presuppo-
sition normally associated with the second. I’ll do it when he pays me presupposes that he’ll pay me, but I’ll
do it if and when he pays me does not. Similarly, They must consider in what circumstances it should be allowed
presupposes that there are circumstances where it should be allowed, but [21ii], with whether, does not.
51
Another fixed phrase is one or other, a coordination of a determinative and an adjective; it functions as a
determiner meaning “either/any”.
§ 3.4 Coordination and genitives 1331
distributive interpretation it denotes the set consisting of Kim’s children and Pat’s chil-
dren. Note, then, that in a context where Kim is married to Pat we can appropriately use
either Type i, Kim and Pat’s marriage, or Type ii, Kim’s and Pat’s marriage. Conversely,
if Tom is married to Jill and Max is married to Sue, we can refer to the husbands as
either Jill and Sue’s husbands (Type i) or Jill’s and Sue’s husbands (Type ii). The Type iii
construction, however, has only a distributive interpretation: [iii] denotes the set com-
prising Kim’s children and Pat’s children.
Two factors affect the choice between Types i and ii. First, some speakers generally
opt for Type ii rather than Type i, at least in the relatively careful use of language, because
they take it to be grammatically more ‘correct’ for an inflectional suffix to attach to single
words than to coordinations. Secondly, Type i will often be preferred over Type ii when
the genitive relation is interpreted jointly, when there is a strong (and relevant) associ-
ation between the referents of the coordinated NPs. Thus we say Gilbert and Sullivan’s
popularity rather than Gilbert’s and Sullivan’s popularity because we are concerned with
them as a team rather than as individuals. This is why the contextualisation of [22] with
Kim and Pat as parents of the same children is more salient for [i] than for [ii]. In the
Gilbert and Sullivan case this second factor will strongly outweigh the first, whereas
in [22] the factors are more evenly balanced, allowing for variation according to for-
mality and speaker. The second factor also explains why a preference for Type i over
Type ii is more likely with and than with or : the kind of association relevant here is
found only with and.52
In [22] the coordination is between NPs, but Types i and ii are also found with
coordination of nominals:
[23] i her [mother and father’s] letters [Type i: single genitive]
ii her [mother’s and father’s] letters [Type ii: direct multiple genitive]
(b) Genitive pronouns
The pattern with personal pronouns differs in two respects. In the first place, Type i,
with a single genitive, is not admissible in the standard language. Secondly, there are two
series of genitive pronouns, dependent (my, your, etc.) and independent (mine, yours,
etc.). This gives two variants of Type ii. Compare, then:
∗
[24] i [you and my] letters [Type i: single genitive]
ii [your and her] letters [Type iia: direct multiple genitive – dependent]
iii yours and hers [Type iib: direct multiple genitive – independent]
iv your letters and hers [Type iii: indirect multiple genitive]
With pronouns, the Type ii construction hardly allows a joint interpretation. His and her
children, for example, strongly conveys that the children don’t all have the same parents.
Similarly his and her quarrel could hardly be used to denote a quarrel between him and her.
One common use of Type iia is in examples like Everyone must face his or her partner,
where the antecedent is a non-referential NP that is neutral as to sex (see Ch. 5, §17.2.4).
Otherwise this construction is felt to be somewhat awkward, and tends to be disfavoured
relative to Type iii or to a non-coordinative plural genitive: our/your/their letters.
52
Another case where the second factor outweighs the first is that involving measure expressions, as in a week
and a day’s delay (“eight days’ delay”): a week’s and a day’s delay denotes two delays, one of a week, the other
of a day.
(c) Mixed coordinations

The possibilities here are as follows:
[25] pronoun first pronoun last
i a. ?[you and Kim’s] letters b. ∗[Kim and your] letters [Type i]
ii a. [your and Kim’s] letters b. [Kim’s and your] letters [Type iia]
iii a. yours and Kim’s b. Kim’s and yours [Type iib]

iv a. your letters and Kim’s b. Kim’s letters and yours
[Type iii]
v a. yours and Kim’s letters b. [pre-empted by iib]
Type i is at best very marginal. The version with a genitive pronoun, [ib], is of the same
status as [24i], though the construction with an independent pronoun may be slightly better
(?These are Kim and yours). The version with a non-genitive pronoun, [ia], is most acceptable
when the second coordinate contains a dependent genitive: you and your partner’s letters.
With pronouns that have distinct nominative and accusative forms, the accusative is clearly
non-standard: !me and Kim’s letters. The nominative is inadmissible with a 1st person pronoun,
∗
I and my partner’s letters, but perhaps marginally acceptable for some speakers with a 3rd
person, ?they and their partners’ letters.
Type ii is grammatical but again disfavoured relative to Type iii or a non-coordinative
construction. For Type iii there is a variant in which the head noun (letters) appears in the
second coordinate, as in [va]. An attested example (from an address by a managing director) is
It is mine and the board’s responsibility to maximise profits. The effect is to use an independent
form of the pronoun in place of the dependent one that would normally be expected when
the head noun comes at the end of the matrix NP, i.e. in place of my in my and the board’s
responsibility. There is no counterpart to [va] with the pronoun in final position, since it
is only with pronouns that the distinction between independent and dependent genitives
applies: Kim’s and your letters will thus be construed as having the structure indicated in [iib]
rather than [Kim’s] [and your letters].
3.5 Coordination of clause types

Coordination of unlike types
Coordinated clauses are usually of the same type, but do not have to be: this is one
reason why we take declarative, imperative, etc., to be categories of the clause rather
than the sentence. Coordination of unlike types is seen in [26i] (main clauses) and [26ii]
(subordinate clauses):
[26] i a. [It’ll be very hot,][so take plenty of drink]. [declar + impve]
b. [They’ve finished the job,] [but why did they take so long?] [declar + interrog]
c. [Did you make your own contributions to a complying
superannuation fund] [and your assessable income is
less than $31,000?] [interrog + declar]
d.[You give the first three lectures][and then I’ll take over]. [impve + declar]
e. [Come around six,][or is that too early?] [impve + interrog]
f. [What a disaster it was][and yet no-one seemed to mind ]. [exclam + declar]
ii a. I knew [that he would come][and what he would say]. [declar + interrog]
b. I remember [who was there][and what a success it was]. [interrog + exclam]
With main clauses such mixed coordinations characteristically involve a sequence of
separate speech acts (statements, questions, directives, etc.), so that the coordinator will
§ 3.5 Coordination of clause types 1333
have wider scope than the illocutionary components. A normal utterance of [ia], for
example, consists of a statement (or prediction) followed by a directive. Similarly, in [ib]
we have a statement followed by a question, in [if] an exclamatory statement followed
by an ordinary statement.
But this is not so in all cases. Most obviously, [26ic] (taken from an income tax form)
expresses a single question, not question + statement: this is a rather unusual case where
in a coordination of full main clauses a feature of the first coordinate (here the closed
interrogative clause type) has semantic scope over the whole coordination.53 A different
case again is seen in [ie]. It is not a matter of a choice between a directive and a question:
the question has priority, and only if the answer is negative does the directive stand
(“Come around six if that is not too early”).
Coordinations of like type

An unmixed coordination of main declaratives (Kim is in Bonn and Pat is too) can
generally be taken as a single statement of a composite proposition, though (at least
with and ) it would make no effective difference if we regarded it as a combination of
statements, each of a simple proposition. Analogously for imperatives.
The situation with interrogatives is more complex. And, as in Who is it and what
do they want?, can be taken to join questions, though again this hardly differs from
an interpretation as a single composite question (with answers like “It’s Jill and she
wants to borrow the saw”). But does not normally coordinate main interrogatives (we
would not say Who is it but what do they want?).54 With or we have several distinct
possibilities:
[27] i Is it genuine or is it a hoax? [alternative Q]
ii Have you moved or are you about to move? [alternative or polar Q]
iii Either can you eat it or have I got one? [two polar questions]
Example [i] is a single question, with or marking it as of the alternative kind: the answers
are “It is genuine” and “It is a hoax”. Example [ii], discussed in Ch. 10, §4.4, could
also be an alternative question, asking whether your move has already taken place or is
imminent. But it can also be a single polar question, asked for example in order to find
out whether the writer’s record of your address needs changing: here the answers are
“Yes, I have moved or am about to move” and “No, I have not moved nor am I about
to move”. This is comparable to [26ic], for in both of them the whole coordination
expresses a single polar question, but whereas with and the second clause is declarative,
with or it has to be interrogative. Example [27iii] is a coordination of questions: much
less usual, but possible in a context where, for example, I am trying to solve a puzzle and
say, Give me a clue by answering one of the following questions: Either can . . . The either
in [iii] makes explicit that the coordination has wide scope, i.e that it is a coordination
of questions. It could not appear at the beginning of [i–ii], where the coordination
has narrow scope (coordination within a question). This scope factor accounts for the
53
The same applies in informal speech in examples like Did he come in and I was still asleep? (=[30ii] of §2),
or How could you have been so spiteful, and her your best friend? (where the second clause is verbless, and is
interpreted as “given that she was your best friend”). A further case where an element in the first coordinate
may have scope over the second is seen in It might be up there and I can’t see it : here might has wide scope, the
meaning being “it might be that it is up there and I can’t see it”.
54
Exceptions arise when one of the interrogatives is used as an indirect statement: Isn’t it a bargain, but where
could we put it?
fact noted earlier (§2.3) that either can never correlate with the or of an alternative
question.55
3.6 Level of coordination

Equivalence at different levels
It is an important property of coordination, we have noted, that it can occur at al-
most any place in constituent structure. As a result, we have equivalences such as those
shown in:
[28] i They shot her father and they shot her mother. [clauses]
ii They shot her father and shot her mother. [VPs]
iii They shot her father and her mother. [NPs]
iv They shot her father and mother. [nouns]
(Coordinations at different levels may differ in meaning in ways described in §1.3: we will
not be concerned with those differences in the present section.) The lower the level, the
less repetition there is; but the most economical version, the one with the coordination
at the lowest level, is not always the preferred one.
In general, lower-level coordination tends to suggest a closer association between the
coordinates than higher-level coordination. Given that there is a very close association
between one’s father and one’s mother, the word-level coordination in They shot her father
and mother is perfectly natural; in the absence of special contextual factors, however,
there is no similarly close association between one’s father and one’s solicitor, and hence
one would be more likely to say She was accompanied by her father and her solicitor, with
the coordination at phrase level, than · · · by her father and solicitor. Compare, similarly,
I need a shirt and tie (strong association: coordination of nouns) and I need a diary
and a calculator (weaker association: coordination of phrases). Or again: my friend and
colleague (a single person) and my boss and my secretary (different people).
We have also noted that determinatives tend not to coordinate readily, with a higher-
level coordination preferred in cases like this copy and those. Similarly, while be allows
mixed coordinations as complement, a version where be is repeated will often be preferred
or required when non-finites are involved, as in He was insolent and was dismissed.
Number constraints on coordination of nouns
In NP structure certain determiners are sensitive to the number of the head, as described
in Ch. 5, §3.4. The demonstratives this and that agree with the head, and determiners
such as a, one, each select singular heads, while many, several, two, etc., select plurals.
Coordinations of nouns (or nominals) in head function are subject to various constraints
illustrated in:
[29] i a. ∗these elephant and giraffe b. ∗two elephant and giraffe
ii a. this cup and saucer b. a/one cup and saucer
iii a. #this elephant and giraffe b. #an/one elephant and giraffe
The examples in [i] demonstrate that a coordination of singulars does not count syntac-
tically as plural, and hence cannot combine with a plural demonstrative or a determiner
55
In the case of [27ii] it is marginally possible to have either to the right of its basic position before the first
coordinate, as in Have you either moved or are you about to move?
§ 3.6 Level of coordination 1335
that selects a plural head. Such a coordination can combine with a singular demonstra-
tive or a determiner selecting a singular head if there is a close association between the
coordinates, as in [ii]. Thus a cup and a saucer can be conceptualised as a unit, but this
would not normally be possible with an elephant and a giraffe. Instead of [iii], therefore,
we would normally have coordination at the NP level, with separate determiners: this
elephant and this giraffe, and so on. Note, moreover, that whatever the determiner, a
singular cannot coordinate with a plural at the word level: the women and the man, not
∗
the women and man.56
The dissociating effect of higher-level coordination
When the close association factor could be expected to sanction a lower-level coor-
dination, use of a higher-level one may serve to separate, to partially dissociate the
coordinates. Compare:
[30] i He had dinner and watched TV. [VP-coordination]
ii He had dinner and he watched TV. [clause-coordination]
In [i] we have a common sequence of events, whereas in [ii] we might be listing more
sharply distinguished events, and it does not convey as strongly as [i] that the events
took place in the order in which they are expressed.
Coordination at unlike levels

We also find examples where the coordinates are at different levels in the hierarchy:
[31] i If you are homeless, an orphan, a refugee in State care or your parents can’t provide
you with a home, care or support, you can get Austudy from the minimum school
leaving age.
ii He was middle-aged, of sallow complexion and had penetrating blue eyes.
iii He reads widely, has a questioning mind and he’s very mature for his years.
iv He had read the report, discussed it with colleagues and was now drafting a reply.
In [i] the first three coordinates are phrases, each of which could occur as predicative
complement to be, while the final coordinate is a clause. In [ii] the first two coordinates
are phrases within a VP while the third is a full VP. In [iii] the first two are VPs, the
third a clause. And in [iv] the first two are past-participials dependent on perfect have,
while the third is a finite VP. The status of such examples is somewhat uncertain. They
are more likely to be found in casual speech than in more carefully monitored speech or
writing – but they do occur in the latter, as evident from [i], taken from an Australian
Government document on its tertiary education allowance.
The examples in [31] cannot be described directly in terms of the structures outlined in
§1, for the underlined expressions do not combine into a constituent with a definable
function. If they are to be regarded as grammatical and given an analysis, we will need
to treat the coordination as being at the level of the final coordinate, with ellipsis of el-
ements at the beginning of the medial coordinates. Thus [ii], for example, would be a
case of VP-coordination, with the second coordinate, of sallow complexion, having ellipsis
56
Where a numeral higher than three combines with a noun-coordination the generally preferred interpretation
is that where it applies to the coordinates jointly. Thus ten elephants and giraffes is most likely to be interpreted
as denoting a set of ten animals in all. But a distributive interpretation (“ten elephants and ten giraffes”) cannot
be excluded.
of the verb was. This would put them in the category of non-basic coordination, to be
discussed in the next section, but given their marginal status we will not consider them any
further.
4 Non-basic coordination
So far we have focused on what we will now call basic coordination, in contrast to
various more complex constructions, non-basic coordination, to which we now turn.
Basic coordination is illustrated in [1], and has the three properties summarised
in [2]:
[1] [Sue and her brother]live in Paris.
[2] i Bare coordinates are normal constituents. That is, they can appear as constituents
in corresponding non-coordinative constructions: Sue lives in Paris; Her brother
lives in Paris.57
ii Coordinates appear in succession. In [1], for example, the second coordinate,
including its marker and, immediately follows the first.
iii Bare coordinates appear alone or in combination with a marker. In [1] Sue stands
on its own, while her brother is marked by and.
Non-basic coordination lacks one or more of these properties. We have already noted
in connection with [2iii] that a coordinate can be expanded by a modifier as well as (or
instead of) a coordinator, as in Jill and her brother too live in Paris : we look at this kind of
expansion first, and then turn to various constructions differing from basic coordination
in respect of properties [i] or [ii].
4.1 Expansion of coordinates by modifiers (the guests and indeed

his family too)
In this construction an expanded coordinate contains one or more modifiers in addition
to the bare coordinate and the marker (coordinator) if present:
[3] i He offended [the guests and indeed his family too]. [expansion by modifier]
ii He offended [the guests and his family]. [basic NP-coordination]
The second coordinate in [i] consists of his family as bare coordinate, and as marker, and
indeed and too as modifiers – see [9] of §1 for a tree diagram.
Distinct constructions only with lower-level coordinates

Expansion by a modifier does not yield a special coordination construction with main clause
coordinates (or their VPs). For here comparable modifiers have a place in the structure that
is quite independent of coordination:
[4] i He offended the guests and indeed he offended his family too.
ii He offended the guests. Indeed he offended his family too.
57
We have noted that in a joint coordination like Sue and her husband are a happy couple there are no non-
coordinative counterparts, but the coordinates here can still be regarded as normal constituents in that their
status as constituents elsewhere (e.g. in Her husband is happy) is quite unproblematic.
§ 4.2 Gapped coordination 1337
There is no coordination in [ii], but the modifiers indeed and too have the same function
here as in [i]. For this reason we treat them as belonging within the bare coordinate in
[i], so that [i] will be simply an instance of basic coordination of clauses.58 Note that with
a subordinate clause, by contrast, the modifier can be clearly outside the bare coordinate:
I can’t recall any task which at first seemed so simple and yet which subsequently proved so
troublesome.
Types of modifier
The central type of modifier in this construction is one which reinforces the relation
expressed by the coordinator, including as a special case negative not as modifier to the
first term in a but-coordination:
[5] i She had read the report and taken notes too.
ii It must have been a rat or else a very large mouse.
iii I want it not next week but now.
These include additive focusing adverbs, as discussed in Ch. 6, §7.3. Others of this kind
include also, as well, in addition (with and or but), alternatively (with or), rather (with
but). Also common are various connective modifiers such as consequently, by contrast,
of course, on the one hand, and modifiers expressing epistemic modality such as perhaps,
probably, certainly, obviously, no doubt (cf. They’re inviting Jill and probably her husband
as well ).
Similar to this construction is one where a coordinate is anchor to a supplement
(cf. §5 below), as in It had been affected by both the inflation rate and, more recently,
devaluation.
4.2 Gapped coordination (Kim is an engineer and Pat a barrister)

Gapped coordinates are structurally incomplete clauses: the predicator is omitted, so
that there is a gap in the middle of the clause. Compare:
[6] i Kim is an engineer and Pat is a barrister. [basic coordination]
ii Kim is an engineer and Pat a barrister. [gapped coordination]
The gap, marked in [ii] by ‘ ’, is interpreted anaphorically from the underlined an-
tecedent in the first clause. Usually a gapped coordination is semantically equivalent to a
basic coordination in which there is repetition rather than a gap,59 as [ii] here is equiva-
lent to [i]. Gapping is possible only when the coordinates have parallel structures: the gap
is flanked by elements which match elements of like function flanking the antecedent.
In [ii], for example, Pat matches the subject Kim and a barrister matches the predicative
complement an engineer. In multiple coordination all the coordinates after the first can
be gapped: Kim is an engineer, Pat a barrister, and Alex a doctor.60
58
An exception is else : even with clauses this does not normally occur except with or and hence should be treated
as expanding the coordinate.
59
The repetition need not be exact, since agreement features are irrelevant: the basic counterpart of Kim is an
engineer and the two boys doctors will have are, not is.
60
The term ‘gapping’ is taken from formal grammar; there is no established term in traditional grammar for
this construction. It should be emphasised, however, that there are numerous constructions that we analyse
in terms of a gap, and the term ‘gapping’ or ‘gapped coordination’ applies only to the one discussed in this
section.
In the simplest case the gap has just the predicator of the first clause as antecedent,
and is flanked on the left by the subject and on the right by a single element (complement
or adjunct). In [6ii] the right element is a predicative complement, while in [7i–ii] it is
object and adjunct respectively:
[7] i Their daughter studied law, their son medicine. [subject object]
ii The PM arrived at six and the Queen an hour later. [subject adjunct]
The gap in combination with the structural parallelism serves to tie the clauses together,
so that and is more readily omitted than in basic coordination – compare [7i] with
Their daughter studied law, their son studied medicine, where in speech it would be more
difficult to decide whether we have asyndetic coordination or simply a sequence of two
sentences.
More complex cases of gapping

Consider now the possible extensions of this elementary type of gapping.
(a) The antecedent may be a sequence of elements
[8] i Jill came to Fiji in 1967 and her parents the following year.
ii Their daughter was studying law, their son medicine.
iii Kim expects to get a credit, Pat only a pass.
iv His father wanted him to marry Sue, but his mother Louise.
This is particularly common in the catenative construction: the antecedent contains a
verb – either an auxiliary (e.g. progressive be in [ii]) or a lexical verb (e.g. expect and
want in [iii–iv]) – that takes a non-finite complement. It is possible for the whole of the
non-finite complement to be included within the antecedent (Ed wanted to join the firm
because of the pay, Bill because his girlfriend worked there), but more often only part of
it is, as in the above examples, and this then means that the antecedent does not form
a constituent: in [iv], for example, wanted him to marry is clearly not a constituent, for
in constituent structure to marry combines first with Sue.61
One limitation is that the antecedent cannot end with a preposition or infinitival to,
so that the underlined items cannot be omitted in [9] even though they appear in the
first clause too:
[9] i I went by car and Bill by bus.
ii Kim was hoping to go to university and Pat to join the family business.
(b) A gapped coordinate need not contain a subject

We distinguish two cases of gapped clauses with no subject:
[10] i On Monday she’d been in Paris and on Tuesday in Bonn.
ii Always do it with your left hand, never with your right.
In [i] the subject (she) is part of the antecedent; this is possible only when the subject is
preceded by another clause element. In this example the element preceding the subject
is an adjunct, but it could also be a complement: Some of them she cut with an ordinary
knife, the others with a razor-blade. In [ii] there is no subject in the gapped clause
because the coordination is of subjectless clauses, imperatives. But we again have a
61
It is possible, though considerably less usual, for the catenative verb alone to be the antecedent, and again this
applies whether it is an auxiliary or a lexical verb: Kim will lead the party and Pat bring up the rear ; One was
reading, the other watching television ; Two of them intended to go to university, and one to join the army.
§ 4.2 Gapped coordination 1339
pre-verbal element (here the modifier never) so that the gap is still medial, flanked on
both sides by contrasting elements.
(c) The antecedent may be non-verbal
This very rare case is found with a verbless complement of with :
[11] With [Jill intent on resigning and Pat on following her example], we look like losing
our two best designers.
(d) The gap may be followed by two elements
It is possible, but rare, to have more than one element after the gap – e.g. object +
adjunct:
[12] Ed had given me earrings for Christmas and Bob a necklace for my birthday.
(e) There may be two gaps rather than one
[13] i One had treated his whole family appallingly, the other only his wife .
ii I wanted the Indian to win, my wife the Italian .
iii Too few fathers had been rostered for Saturday and mothers for Sunday.
iv His criticisms of Kim were inaccurate and of Pat irrelevant.
v Max hadn’t finished his assignment, nor Jill hers.
In [i] we interpret the gapped coordinate as “the other had treated only his wife
appallingly”; this sense of treat requires a manner dependent, so the antecedent must be
the discontinuous sequence had treated . . . appallingly. In [ii] we understand “my wife
wanted the Italian to win”: we reconstruct both the main predicator and the infinitival
complement following the object. In [iii] the determiner element in the subject, too few,
is carried over as well as the verbal sequence had been rostered ; note that the omission
of the determiner (creating a secondary gap) is possible only in combination with the
primary gapping of the predicator – we can’t say ∗Too few fathers had been rostered for
Saturday and mothers had volunteered for Sunday. Secondary gapping of this kind is
extremely restricted: it would hardly be possible, for example, if we replaced too few by all
the or five. In [iv] the first part of the subject is likewise missing, this time determiner +
head. Finally [v] could be expanded as nor had Jill finished hers, where nor triggers
subject–auxiliary inversion, separating the auxiliary had from the past participle
finished.
(f) Exceptionally, the gap may be in final position
[14] In most households the adults make these decisions, but in ours the kids .
This possibility reflects the fact that the basic position for the adjuncts in most households,
in ours is after the object: in the version without fronting of the adjuncts the gap will be
in its normal medial position (The adults make these decisions in most households, but the
kids in ours).
Case
The case of a subject pronoun in a gapped clause may be either nominative or accusative:
Kim took the upper route, I/me the lower one. This is in accordance with the general
rules for case assignment, which in a finite clause require a nominative when there is
an overt verb but allow either case elsewhere, with the nominative representing the
more formal alternant (see Ch. 5, §16.2.1). However, when a gapped clause consists of a
subject pronoun followed by an object pronoun, an accusative subject is appreciably less
acceptable: Max loathed the Smiths and they/?them him ; informal style would tend to
avoid the gapped construction here.
Possible non-equivalence with basic coordination

In all the examples so far the gapped coordination has been semantically equivalent to
the corresponding basic coordination, as noted for [6]. But such an equivalence does
not always hold:

[15] i a. Kim can’t have a new bicycle and Pat just a t-shirt.
[a=b]
b. Kim can’t have a new bicycle and Pat can’t have just a t-shirt.

ii a. Kim wasn’t at work on Monday or Pat on Tuesday.
[a=b]
b. Kim wasn’t at work on Monday or Pat wasn’t at work on Tuesday.
A context for [i] might be a discussion between parents concerning possible presents
for their children. We interpret [ia] as something like “We can’t allow/accept a sit-
uation where Kim has a new bicycle and Pat has just a t-shirt”; semantically there
is just one “can’t” but it applies to the composite situation in which Kim and Pat
are treated so differently, Kim receiving a new bicycle, Pat just a t-shirt. Here, then,
can’t has scope over the coordination. In [ib], however, it does not, for this time
“can’t” appears twice, applying separately and independently to the two simple sit-
uations. A plausible response to [ia] might be OK, let’s give them both a new bicy-
cle, but this would be incoherent as a response to [ib], because [ib] rules out giv-
ing a new bicycle to Kim. The difference in [ii] is likewise a matter of scope. The
meaning of [iia] is “It is not the case that Kim was at work on Monday or that Pat
was at work on Tuesday”. Semantically we again have just one negative here, with
scope over the whole coordination. We have noted that “not A-or-B” is equivalent
to “not-A and not-B” (I didn’t like his father or mother = I didn’t like his father and
I didn’t like his mother), and the same applies here, so that [iia] is equivalent not to
[iib] but to Kim wasn’t at work on Monday and Pat wasn’t at work on Tuesday. Ex-
ample [iia] says there were two absences, while [iib] implicates that there was just
one.
Analysis
On the basis of the simple examples with which we began it is tempting to analyse gapped
coordination in terms of the deletion of repeated material, but [15] shows that a syntactic
analysis of this kind is not satisfactory. We must accept that the syntactic structure of the
gapped coordinate is simply fragmentary (e.g. subject + predicative complement for [6ii]);
the context enables us to derive a semantic interpretation, but this may be a more complex
matter than just filling in missing words.
It was with such examples as [15ia/iia] in mind that we defined clausal coordination in
§1.3.1 as coordination of full main clauses. This puts gapped coordination with subclausal
coordination: it belongs here because, as in more central cases, the coordinator may fall
within the scope of a preceding element.
Gapping in non-coordinative constructions

In general, gapping is not found with subordination: ∗I will help you if you me ; ∗Jill
danced with Max because Liz with his brother. There are, however, some exceptions,
notably comparatives (which in other respects too have a good deal in common with
coordinative constructions): Max loved Jill more than she him, or I wanted the Indian
to win as much as my wife the Italian (cf. [13ii]). The comparative and coordination
§ 4.3 Right nonce-constituent coordination 1341
cases are not entirely parallel, however, for they behave differently with respect to nega-
tion. In Max didn’t love Jill as much as she him, for example, we interpret the gap as
“loved”, not “didn’t love”, but we could not similarly leave out loved in Max didn’t love
Jill but she loved him.
4.3 Right nonce-constituent coordination (I gave $ 10 to Kim and $ 5 to Pat)

This is coordination of sequences that do not form syntactic constituents elsewhere, e.g.
in corresponding basic coordination:
[16] i I gave $10 to Kim and I gave $5 to Pat. [basic coordination]
ii I gave $10 to Kim and $5 to Pat. [nonce-constituent coordination]
In [i] $10 and to Kim do not go together to form a constituent as they are separate
complements of give, and likewise for $5 and to Pat ; yet in [ii] these sequences $10 to
Kim and $5 to Pat form the bare coordinates, and by virtue of that they are constituents.
The term ‘nonce-constituent’ is intended to convey, therefore, that constituent status is
conferred on the sequence simply by the coordination relation – they are constituents
for the nonce, as it were, just by virtue of the coordination.62 And we call it ‘right’ nonce-
constituent coordination because the coordinates follow the head element on which the
components are dependent, in this case give.
The structural parallelism requirement

The coordinated sequences are required to be parallel in structure. In [16ii], for example,
each consists of a direct object followed by a to phrase complement. Further examples
meeting this requirement are given in [17i], including one that has three elements within
each coordinate, and [17ii] illustrates the deviance that results when the coordinates are
not parallel:
[17] i a. We persuaded one of them to cycle and the others to catch a bus.
b. It was criticised by some for being too short, by others for being too long.
c. Ted considered Kim too young and Pat too earnest.
d. Jill bought Kim a t-shirt and Pat some shorts.
e. I sent Ed a letter on Monday and Sue a postcard on Friday.
ii a. ∗In the afternoon I wrote a report and my wife a letter.
b. ∗He blamed his wife for the debts and the untidy state of the house on the boys.
Examples [ic–e] are in fact ambiguous between this construction and gapping (where
the meaning would be “. . . and Pat considered Kim too earnest”, etc., but the right
nonce-constituent reading is generally much more likely in such cases.63 Similarly [iia]
is grammatical as an instance of gapping (“ . . . and my wife wrote a letter”): the asterisk
indicates that it can’t be a case of right nonce-constituent coordination. This is because
the two coordinates are not structurally alike or parallel: the first contains just a single
element (direct object) while the second contains two (indirect object + direct object). In
62
Precisely because these sequences are constituents of the coordination construction we prefer ‘nonce-
constituent’ to the more usual term in formal grammar, ‘non-constituent coordination’.
63
This is where the NPs are all of the same type: in Some of them considered me too young and others too old,
where others contrasts more naturally with some of them than with me, it is the gapped coordination reading
that is more salient.
[iib] both coordinates contain two elements, but they reflect different complementation
patterns for blame : ‘blame X for Y’ and ‘blame Y on X ’.64
Right nonce-constituent coordination in NP structure

Unlike gapping, the present construction is not restricted to clause structure, but is found
also in NPs:
[18] She’s read [the lectures on Goethe by Dr Smith and on Schiller by Dr Jones].
Possible non-equivalence with basic coordination

As with gapping, this construction is usually equivalent to corresponding basic coordi-
nation (as [16ii] is equivalent to [16i]), but it is not invariably so. The following examples
of non-equivalence are of the same kind as those given in [15]:

[19] i a. I can’t give a new bicycle to Kim and just a t-shirt to Pat.
[a=b]
b. I can’t give a new bicycle to Kim and I can’t give just a t-shirt to Pat.

ii a. He said nothing to Kim about Pat or to Pat about Kim.
[a=b]
b. He said nothing to Kim about Pat or he said nothing to Pat about Kim.
In [ia] a single composite situation is excluded, the one where I give a new bicycle to Kim
and just a t-shirt to Pat, whereas [ib] excludes the two simple situations separately. In
[ia] and has narrow scope relative to can’t, whereas in [ib] and has wide scope. Similarly
in [iia] the negative nothing has scope over or, and hence (by the equivalence of “not
A-or-B” to “not-A and not-B”) the sentence can be paraphrased not as [iib], but as He
said nothing to Kim about Pat and he said nothing to Pat about Kim.
Analysis
In view of the non-equivalence shown in [19], it would not be satisfactory to derive the right
nonce-constituent construction from basic coordination by deletion of repeated material.
Instead we propose an analysis along the lines shown in [20], a simplified representation of
the structure of the VP in [16ii].
[20] VP
Predicator: NP+PP-coordination
V
NP+PP NP+PP
Object1: Comp1: Marker: Coordinate2:

NP PP Coordinator NP+PP
Object2: Comp2:
NP PP
gave $10 to Kim and $5 to Pat
64
Some speakers find acceptable such examples as ?He left his daughter $20,000 and half that amount to each of
his grandchildren; it is certainly better than [17iib] and also than the opposite breach of parallelism seen in ∗He
left $20,000 to his daughter and each of his grandchildren half that amount.
§ 4.4 Delayed right constituent coordination 1343
The notation ‘NP + PP’ means a sequence of NP followed by PP. The sequence $10 to Kim
and $5 to Pat is a coordination of such sequences, but no function is assigned to it: it is only
the smaller elements $10, $5, to Kim, and to Pat that can be assigned clause-level functions,
direct object for the first two, prepositional complement for the others.
Further evidence for saying that the first coordinate is the sequence $10 to Kim (rather
than I gave $10 to Kim or gave $10 to Kim) is that it can be marked by correlative both : I gave
both $10 to Kim and $5 to Pat.65
4.4 Delayed right constituent coordination (knew of but never mentioned

my work)
In this construction the constituent which in basic coordination would appear as the
rightmost element of the first coordinate is held back until after the final coordinate:
[21] i She knew of my other work but never mentioned it. [basic coordination]
ii She knew of but never mentioned my other work. [delayed right constituent]
In general, the effect is to heighten the contrast between the coordinates by removing
from them material that would be the same in each. But the construction is appreciably
more difficult to process than basic coordination, both for the addressee, who has to hold
the first coordinate in mind until the sense is completed at the end, and for the speaker,
who has to plan ahead to ensure that each coordinate ends in a way that syntactically
allows completion by the delayed element – as knew of and never mentioned both allow
completion by an NP complement.66 Characteristically, there is a prosodic break after the
final coordinate, signalling that the element that follows relates to the whole coordination,
not just to the final coordinate.
Range of uses
We illustrate here a sample of the main types of coordination where a right constituent
is delayed in this way.67
(a) Heads taking different complementation
Probably the most common case is where the heads of the coordinates differ in the
syntactic complements they take. Example [21ii] is of this kind: know (in the sense
intended) takes an of PP, while mention takes an NP object. Other examples are seen in:
[22] i I’m interested in but rather apprehensive about their new proposal.
ii He ought to, but probably won’t, make a public apology.
65
One type of example that does not readily fit into the structure shown in [20] is We’ll be in Paris for a week and
Bonn for three days. The complication here is that for a week is a clause-level function (adjunct of duration),
but Paris is not – it is the complement of the preposition in. The best solution is probably to treat in as part of
the coordination; we will then have a PP+PP-coordination, with ellipsis of in in the second coordinate.
66
Examples are found where this condition is not satisfied. One case is illustrated in ?I always have and always
will value her advice, where the plain form value is an admissible continuation of will but not of have : compare
basic I have always valued her advice and always will value it. Another involves coordination of comparisons of
equality and inequality: ?It’s as good or better than the official version, where as good takes a complement headed
by as not than. Such examples are not fully grammatical and would generally be avoided in monitored speech
and writing; the second can be corrected to It’s as good as or better than the official version.
67
We focus on cases where the delayed element is a single constituent; occasional examples are found where
what follows the coordination is not a single constituent but a sequence: It had to be ascertained whether the
managers had suitable people to put forward for possible appointment from persons [registered with, or applying
to, them for employment].
In [i] the heads interested and apprehensive take different prepositions, in and about. In
[ii] ought and will take different kinds of infinitival complement, with to appearing only
with ought.
(b) Contrasts of time or modality
A second pattern has the same verb in each coordinate but with differences expressing
such concepts as time or modality:
[23] i She was then, is now, and always will be, devoted to the cause of peace.
ii They regarded him, or appeared to regard him, as a complete liability.
(c) Pairing of lexically simple and lexically complex coordinates
[24] i He had either telephoned or written a letter to his son’s boss.
ii You should welcome, not take offence at, the suggestions they make.
iii He was accused but found not guilty of stalking a woman for seven years.
The first coordinates here are simple verbs, while the final ones are complex expressions:
[ii] illustrates the fairly common case where one or more of the coordinates in this
construction is a verbal idiom of the kind considered in Ch. 4, §6.4.
(d) Contrasting sequences of pre-head dependents in NP structure
[25] i They have [five new and two second-hand copies of his novel ].
ii [Neither the American nor the Russian people ]want war.
In [i] both dependents in the coordinated sequences contrast, whereas in [ii] only the
second does. The repetition of the in [ii] is motivated by neither which could not occur
between the and American, but such repetition is not restricted to cases where it is
syntactically or semantically required: He was comparing the American and the Russian
versions.
(e) Contrasting pairs of subject and verb
[26] Kim may accept, but Pat will certainly reject, the management’s new proposal.
Construction not confined to coordination

Delayed right constituents occur predominantly in coordination, but they are found in
some subordinative constructions too:
[27] i I enjoyed, although everyone else seemed to find fault with, her new novel.
ii Those who voted against far outnumbered those who voted for my father’s motion.
These most closely resemble case (e) above in that the contrasting sequences (shown by
underlining) that could combine with the delayed right constituent contain a subject: I
vs everyone else in [i], and who in [ii].
Analysis
In some cases the present construction looks like the mirror image of right nonce-constituent
coordination: compare five new and two second-hand copies with gave $10 to Kim and $5
to Pat, and so on. But there are two important differences. One is the point just noted,
that a delayed right constituent can occur in subordination. The other is that the present
construction does not require the parallelism that is found with right nonce-constituent
coordination. In [24i], for example, the coordinates are telephoned and written a letter to,
which are quite different in their internal structure.
§ 4.5 End-attachment coordination 1345
One possible analysis is to take the right constituent as being related to the coordinates,
in a way analogous to that in which a relative pronoun is related to a relative clause (and
similarly in other unbounded dependency constructions: cf. Ch. 12, §7): [24i] might then be
compared to his son’s boss whom he had either telephoned or written a letter to. Applying this
idea to [24i] gives a structure along the lines of [28]:
[28] Predicate:
VP-coordination
Nucleus: Postnucleus:
VP-coordination NPi
Coordinate1 : Coordinate2:
VP VP

D VP Coordinator VP
P: Object: P: Object: Comp:

V GAPi V NP PP
Head: Comp:
Prep GAPi
either telephoned –– or written a letter to –– his son’s boss

Both coordinates contain a gap co-indexed with the NP in postnuclear position, just as in
the relative construction they will be co-indexed with the relative pronoun. The difference is
that in the relative construction there may be, and most often is, only one gap (cf. everyone
whom he had telephoned): the delayed right constituent, by contrast, is found only with gaps
in two or more matching sequences, usually coordinate.
No functional label other than ‘postnucleus’ is assigned directly in [28] to the delayed right
constituent. However (like the relative pronoun) it is understood as inheriting the functions
in the coordinates of the gaps with which it is co-indexed. This caters for the case, illustrated
in this example, where the delayed element is understood as having different functions in the
coordinates: his son’s boss is here understood as object of telephoned and complement of the
preposition to. We leave open the question of whether this kind of structure is appropriate to
all cases of delayed right constituents – in particular, those where there is no prosodic break
before the final element, and where it can be an unstressed personal pronoun, as in He’s as
old as or older than me.
4.5 End-attachment coordination (They had found Kim guilty, but not Pat)
A subclausal coordinate may be attached at the end of a construction, following a clause;
it may, but need not, have the informational status of an afterthought, in which case
it has the status of a supplement. Two subtypes can be distinguished, as illustrated in

[29ia/iia]:
[29] i a. They had found Kim guilty of perjury but not Pat. [postposing of coordinate]
b. They had found Kim but not Pat guilty of perjury. [basic coordination]
ii a. I spoke to her, but only briefly. [addition of new element]
b. I spoke to her only briefly. [single clause]
One subtype we call ‘postposing of coordinate’: here the attached element is in a
coordinative relation to a non-adjacent element in the preceding clause, as but not Pat in
[ia] is coordinate with Kim. Usually there is an equivalent basic coordination in which
the coordinates are adjacent, as in [ib]; the second coordinate of [ia] can thus be thought
of as ‘postposed’ in that it occurs to the right of its basic position.
In the second subtype, ‘addition of a new element’, we could drop the coordinator and
integrate what follows it into the preceding clause, yielding a non-coordinative construc-
tion, as in [29ii]. The difference between [a] and [b] here is that the attached coordinate
construction divides the overall message into two separate units of information, and
thereby gives increased prominence to the added element; with but as coordinator there
is also the adversative meaning discussed in §2.5.
Postposing of coordinate
This construction allows either and or or as coordinator, as well as but :
[30] i Jill has been charged with perjury, and her secretary too.
ii Jill must have told them, or else her secretary.
Note that where the basic position is within the subject, postposing has an effect on
subject–verb agreement: in [i], for example, has agrees with Jill (compare Jill and her
secretary too have been charged . . . ). A special case of or is in questions, where we note that
Did Jill tell you that, or her secretary? exhibits the same ambiguity as the basic coordination
Did Jill or her secretary tell you that? It can be either an alternative question (“Which
of them told you?”) or a polar one (“Did one or other of them tell you?”), again with a
clear intonational difference between the readings (Ch. 10, §4.4); note here that in the
alternative interpretation the appended element wouldn’t normally be an afterthought.
As with several of the other constructions considered in this section, factors such as
negation may result in a difference of meaning between basic and non-basic coordination:
[31] i Jill or her secretary hadn’t complied with the regulations.
ii Jill hadn’t complied with the regulations – or her secretary.
Example [i] says that one or other of them hadn’t complied with the regulations; this is
a possible meaning of [ii] (with unstressed or), but in a more likely interpretation (with
stressed or) it says that neither had. Or is outside the scope of the negation in [i], where
or comes before hadn’t, but potentially inside the scope of the negative in [ii], where
their order is reversed.
Analysis
A major difference between this postposing of coordinate construction and basic coordi-
nation is that the coordinates do not combine into a syntactic constituent: in [29ib] the
NP-coordination Kim but not Pat forms a constituent functioning as object, but in [ia]
there is no such constituent. In the postposing construction the coordinative relationship
§ 4.5 End-attachment coordination 1347
is simply marked linearly by but : as far as the hierarchical constituent structure is concerned
but not Pat is attached as an NP at the end of the clause and can be assigned the function
‘coordinate object’. Note that it would not do to claim that the coordination was in fact of
clauses: the full clause They had found Kim guilty of perjury and the clause fragment but not
Pat. The appeal of such an analysis is that it brings the construction into line with normal
coordination in that the coordinates would together form a constituent (co-extensive with
the whole sentence), but whereas it might work for the majority of examples it doesn’t cover
cases like [31ii] above, or similarly:
[32] i They hadn’t issued sheets to the new recruits – or towels.
ii How many had they issued sheets to, but not pillow-slips?
These exhibit the now familiar phenomenon of narrow scope coordination, so that they are
not equivalent to the coordination of full clauses. Thus [i], for example, is not equivalent
to They hadn’t issued sheets to the new recruits or they hadn’t issued towels to them : the latter
says that either sheets or towels hadn’t been issued, whereas [i] says that neither sheets nor
towels had been. The difference is that in [i], but not in the clause-coordination, or is within
the scope of the preceding negative. In [ii] there is no corresponding clause-coordination
that is well formed (cf. ∗How many had they issued sheets to but how many had they not is-
sued pillow-slips to?), but even if there were (as would be the case if we substituted and for
but) it would not be equivalent to [ii] since it would be questioning the number of two sets
(those issued with sheets and those not issued with pillow-slips) instead of one (those issued
with just sheets). In [ii], therefore, the coordinator is within the scope of the interrogative
phrase how many. An analysis in terms of clause-level coordination fails to bring out that the
second coordinate relates not to the whole of what precedes but to a particular constituent
within it.
Addition of a new element

Further examples of this construction are given in:
[33] i The match was won by Kim, and very convincingly too.
ii He was reading, but nothing very serious.
iii I’ll drive you there, but only if you pay for the petrol.
But is the most common coordinator in this construction; and is also possible, but
or is not. The added element is very often interpreted as an adjunct, but it can also
be a complement provided the verb is one that can occur with or without a comple-
ment of the type in question. In [ii], for example, nothing very serious is interpreted
as object of read, this being a verb that occurs in both transitive and intransitive
clauses. Example [iii] represents a rather special use of this construction. Normally
A but B (like A and B) entails both A and B. This applies to basic coordination: Kim
left at six but Pat stayed on till noon, for example, entails both that Kim left at six and
that Pat stayed on till noon. It also applies to most cases of the present construction:
[33i] entails that the match was won by Kim and that it was won very convincingly.
However, [iii] does not entail that I’ll drive you there – it has only the weaker, con-
ditional entailment that I’ll drive you there if you pay for the petrol. But here thus
introduces a qualification that weakens what precedes it; note that only is not omis-
sible, though not could take its place (I’ll drive you there, but not if you criticise my
driving).
The distinction between this construction and basic coordination is not completely straight-
forward; compare:
[34] i He comes not from Alabama but from Georgia.
ii He’s from Alabama, but from the city of Birmingham, not rural Alabama.
Example [i] is a very clear case of basic coordination, the coordinates being not from Alabama
and but from Georgia. We take [ii], however, as adding a new element: the two from PPs
are not coordinates. An important difference in meaning is that while Georgia is distinct
from Alabama, Birmingham is not – it is included within it. Example [ii] is like the earlier
examples of the addition of a new element construction in that we can drop the but to yield
a non-coordinative construction: He’s from Alabama, from the city of Birmingham, not rural
Alabama. We noted in §2.5 that but generally indicates a contrast between the coordinates, a
contrast that is, however, very often derived indirectly via various assumptions and inferences;
this is what is going on in [ii], where the but reflects an assumption that people’s image of
Alabama might be formed mainly by reference to rural stereotypes.
Analysis
In this construction but or and coordinates the added element to the whole preceding clause.
Here, then, in contrast to the postposing of coordinate construction, the clause does have the
form of a coordination between a clause and a clause fragment.
4.6 Coordination as evidence for constituent structure

It is a common practice in linguistic analysis, one we have followed a number of times
in this grammar, to use the potential for coordination as evidence that a given sequence
of words forms a syntactic constituent. The principle can be stated as follows:
[35] In general, if a sequence X can be coordinated with a sequence Y to form a coor-
dination X and Y, then X and Y are constituents.
The qualification ‘in general’ is needed because, as we have noted above, exceptions are
to be found in various kinds of non-basic coordination. In this final section, therefore,
we examine the criterion in the light of the distinction between basic and non-basic
coordination.
Coordination as evidence for a VP constituent
The example we will take is that of the VP: how does coordination support the analysis of a
clause like Sue found the key into two immediate constituents, as in [36i], rather than three,
as in [ii]?
[36] i Sue | found the key. [NP + VP: the VP analysis]
ii Sue | found |the key. [NP + V + NP: the ‘no VP’ analysis]
Principle [35] supports the VP analysis
The sequence found the key can be readily coordinated:
[37] Sue found the key and unlocked the door.
Only analysis [36i] is therefore consistent with principle [35]; other things being equal, it is
to be preferred over [36ii] because it allows us to subsume [37] under basic coordination, so
that it requires no special treatment. Principle [35], however, is qualified, not absolute, so we
need to consider the matter further.
§ 4.6 Coordination as evidence for constituent structure 1349
VP-coordination vs clause-coordination with ellipsis of the subject

An alternative treatment of the coordination here, one that is consistent with [36ii], is to say
that the coordinates are clauses, the second having ellipsis of the subject. The first coordinate
will then be not found the key but Sue found the key, and the second will be ‘ unlocked the
door. This accounts for the equivalence between [37] and Sue found the key and she unlocked
the door. But we saw in §1.3.1 that there are many cases where no such equivalence obtains,
as in:
[38] i No one treats me like that and gets away with it. [VP-coordination]
ii No one treats me like that and no one gets away with it. [clause-coordination]
An elliptical clause analysis doesn’t provide a satisfactory account of coordination like [38i].
Basic vs right nonce-constituent coordination
Another alternative consistent with [36ii] would be to say that the underlined sequences in
[37] are merely nonce-constituents, constituents in the coordination but not elsewhere. This
is to treat [37] like our earlier example:
[39] I gave $10 to Kim and $5 to Pat. (=[16ii])
There are, however, two important differences between [37] and [39]. In the first place,
the nonce-constituents in [39] have to be parallel in structure (as noted in §4.3), whereas
those in [37] do not – compare, for example, Sue found the key and departed. Secondly, the
reason why $10 to Kim is not a normal constituent is that there is no direct syntactic relation
between the parts, $10 and to Kim : they are, rather, separately dependents (complements)
of give. Found the key in [37] is quite different: here there is a syntactic relation between the
parts, found being head and the key dependent. The nonce-constituent analysis is a more
complex type of construction than basic coordination, applying under restricted conditions
(the requirement of parallelism) and justified by strong independent arguments against
recognising the coordinates as normal constituents: in the case of [37] we have no reason to
prefer the more complex analysis to the one that follows the general principle given in [35].
Basic vs delayed right constituent coordination
The relevance of [37] to constituent structure might be challenged on the grounds that it is
also possible for coordination to group found with Sue :
[40] Max lost but Sue found the key.
If coordination can group found with either the key or Sue, the argument would go, then it
can’t provide evidence for a constituent grouping of found with just one of them, the key. But
such an argument fails to recognise that there is a major difference between the coordination
of [37] and that of [40]. The latter represents a much less usual type of coordination than
[37], and this instance of it is indeed of somewhat marginal acceptability because of the low
weight of the key ; acceptability is increased by expanding to the key to the safe but greatly
diminished by reducing to it. Example [40] would characteristically have special prosody,
with a clear break before the key. But [37], by contrast, has no such limitations or special
prosody,68 and can be taken to represent the most elementary type of coordination: as such,
it does provide valid evidence in support of the VP analysis.
68
These properties do not hold for all cases of delayed right constituent coordination, but even when they do not
there will be independent evidence for treating the coordination as non-basic. Take, for example, [24iii], He
was accused but found not guilty of stalking a woman for seven years : it is evident that in the non-coordinative
He was found not guilty of stalking a woman for seven years the of phrase is a complement of guilty, not find not
guilty, because it regularly occurs with guilty quite independently of the presence of find, as in He was/seemed
guilty of treason.
Conclusion: coordination provides a criterion, other things being equal

Coordination clearly does not provide a simple and absolute criterion for constituent struc-
ture: the qualification ‘in general’ in [35] is indispensable. It nevertheless remains a useful
criterion: if a sequence X can be coordinated, then the simplest account will be one where it is
a constituent entering into basic coordination, and we will adopt some other, more complex,
analysis only if there are independent reasons for doing so.
5 Supplementation
We turn now to supplementation constructions, illustrated in such examples as:

[1] i Pat – the life and soul of the party – had invited all the neighbours.
ii The best solution, it seems to me, would be to readvertise the position.
iii Jill sold her internet shares in January – a very astute move.
The underlined expressions are supplements, elements which occupy a position in linear
sequence without being integrated into the syntactic structure of the sentence.
5.1 General properties of supplementation

In the clear and central cases, supplements have the character of interpolations
or appendages. An interpolation, as in [1i–ii], is located at a position between the
beginning and end of a main clause: it represents an interruption to the flow of the
clause. An appendage is attached loosely at the beginning or end of a clause. In speech,
supplements are marked as such by the prosody: they are intonationally separate from
the rest of the sentence. In writing, they are normally set off from the rest of the sentence
by punctuation marks – commas, or stronger marks such as dashes, parentheses, or (in
the cases of appendages in end position) a colon. Punctuation allows for different degrees
of separation, as described in Ch. 20, §§4–5.
Supplementation in relation to dependency constructions and coordination

It is the lack of integration into the syntactic structure that distinguishes supplemen-
tation from dependency constructions and coordination. But supplementation is like
coordination in being non-headed: since the supplement is not integrated into the struc-
ture it cannot function as a dependent to any head. The three types of construction are
thus distinguished as shown in:
[2] integrated? headed?
i dependency construction Yes Yes
ii coordination Yes No
iii supplementation No No
It should be noted, however, that expressions introduced by a coordinator can have the
status of supplements rather than coordinates in an (integrated) coordination cons-
truction:
[3] Jill – and I don’t blame her – left before the meeting had ended. [supplement]
§ 5.1 General properties of supplementation 1351
In spite of the and, the underlined clause is an interpolation, and is clearly not of equal
syntactic status with the clause Jill left before the meeting had ended. We thus treat [3] as
an instance of supplementation, not coordination, such as we have in Jill left before the
end of the meeting and I was sorely tempted to follow her.
Supplements and anchors

Although supplements are not syntactically dependent on a head, they are semantically
related to what we will call their anchor.69 In [1i] the anchor is the NP Pat, while in
[1ii–iii] and [3] it is a clause – the clause which the supplement interrupts or follows.
Other possibilities are shown in [4], where double underlining marks the anchor, single
underlining the supplement:
[4] i When the patient closed his eyes, he had absolutely no spatial (that is, third-
dimensional ) awareness whatsoever.
ii The goal is to produce individuals who not only possess ‘two skills in one skull’, that is,
are bicultural, but can also act as human links between their two cultures.
In [i] the anchor is the adjective spatial (which functions as attributive modifier to the
noun awareness); in [ii] it is the VP possess ‘two skills in one skull’ (first coordinate in a
VP-coordination).
A supplement must be semantically compatible with its anchor. Compare, for example:
[5] i This stipulation – that the amount of damages not be divulged – was ignored.
ii #This stipulation – whether the press could be informed – was ignored.
The supplement in [i] is a declarative clause and as such can appropriately combine with
the anchor this stipulation. The anomaly of [ii] stems from the fact that the supplement
is an interrogative clause and hence is not semantically compatible with this anchor.
Supplements vs dependents
Semantic compatibility vs syntactic licensing of complements
The restriction illustrated in [5] is comparable to that which holds between a complement
and the head nominal in NP structure:
[6] i The stipulation that the amount of damages not be divulged was ignored.
ii ∗The stipulation whether the press could be informed was ignored.
This time, single underlining indicates the complement, double underlining the head.
The noun stipulation licenses a declarative content clause as complement, but not an
interrogative, so [ii] is inadmissible.
There is a significant difference between [5] and [6], however. The integrated con-
struction shown in [6] requires that the complement be syntactically licensed, whereas
in supplementation it is, as we said above, a matter of semantic compatibility. Compare:
[7] i a. The stipulation that Harry could not touch the money until he was eighteen an-
noyed him enormously.
b. ∗The codicil that Harry could not touch the money until he was eighteen annoyed
him enormously.
69
Some writers use the term ‘host’, but we have avoided this because we use it elsewhere in its primary sense,
where it applies to the word to which a clitic is attached (see Ch. 18, §6.2).
ii a. This stipulation – that Harry could not touch the money until he was eighteen –
annoyed him enormously.
b. The codicil in the will – that Harry could not touch the money until he was eigh-
teen – annoyed him enormously.
The examples in [i] belong to the integrated head + complement construction. Stipula-
tion licenses a declarative complement, but codicil does not: hence the ungrammaticality
of [ib]. In [ii] the content clause is a supplement, interpreted as specifying the content
of its anchor NP. And this time the codicil example is acceptable: the NP it heads denotes
an addition to a will and hence has propositional content which can be specified by a
declarative content clause.
As a second illustration of the difference between the integrated and non-integrated
constructions, consider:
[8] i a. The question (of ) where the funding would come from wasn’t discussed.
b. ∗The thing (of ) where the funding would come from was rather more important.
ii a. The second question – where the funding would come from – wasn’t discussed.
b. The thing they didn’t discuss – where the funding would come from – was rather
more important.
Here the content clause is interrogative. In [ia] it is a dependent within the NP headed
by the noun question : it may appear as an immediate complement or it may be related
to the head noun by the preposition of. Again, the complement needs to be licensed by
the head noun: question takes interrogative complements, but thing does not, so [ib]
is ungrammatical. In [ii] the interrogative clause is a supplement and is subject to the
weaker constraint that it be semantically compatible with its anchor. Example [iib] is
therefore admissible because the anchor NP as a whole denotes a potential topic of
discussion, so that the content of this topic can be specified by means of an interrogative
clause supplement.
Form and interpretation of supplements realised by clauses
A further important difference between supplements and dependents is that the former
may be realised by main clauses with their own illocutionary force:
[9] Sue felt – can you blame her? – that she was being exploited.
The supplement here has the form and interpretation of a main clause: there is no change
in form or loss of independent illocutionary force such as is found with clauses realising
a dependent function.
Supplements and non-restrictiveness

By virtue of not being integrated into the syntactic structure, supplements are
necessarily semantically non-restrictive. Compare, for example, [8ia–iia]. In the former,
the integrated construction, the content clause is semantically restrictive, distinguishing
the question being referred to from other questions. It provides the identifying infor-
mation that makes it appropriate to use the definite article the. By contrast, in [iia], the
supplementation construction, the second question by itself constitutes a definite refer-
ring NP. The supplement doesn’t serve to distinguish one second question from other
second questions: it doesn’t restrict the denotation of the head nominal.
The same contrast between dependency and supplementation constructions is com-

monly found with relative clauses and appositives:
[10] i a. The necklace which her mother gave to her was in the safe. [modifier]
b. The necklace, which her mother gave to her, was in the safe. [supplement]
ii a. They are working on a new production of the opera ‘Carmen’. [modifier]
b. Bizet’s most popular opera, ‘Carmen’, was first produced in 1875. [supplement]
In [ia] the relative clause is a modifier of the head noun necklace and serves semantically
to identify which necklace is being referred to, but in [ib] it is a supplement to the anchor
NP the necklace, which is assumed to be identifiable independently of the information
given in the relative clause. Similarly, in [iia] the appositive Carmen is a modifier of
opera, identifying which opera is being referred to, while in [iib] it is a supplement to the
anchor NP Bizet’s most popular opera, and since there can be only one entity satisfying
that description the supplement is again non-restrictive.
However, we have noted in our description of relative clauses and appositives that the
integrated construction is not necessarily semantically restrictive – see Ch. 12, §4.2, and
Ch. 5, §14.3, respectively. Compare, then:
[11] i The father who had planned my life to the point of my unsought arrival in Brighton
took it for granted that in the last three weeks of his legal guardianship I would still
act as he directed.
ii This is my husband George.
In [i] the relative clause doesn’t distinguish one father from another: the narrator has
only one father, so the modifier provides non-restrictive information about him. And
[ii] does not convey that the speaker has more than one husband.
It is for this reason that we have departed from the traditional account of relative
clauses, in which the two main constructions are distinguished as ‘restrictive’ and ‘non-
restrictive’. A distinction in terms of integrated versus supplementary reflects the seman-
tic difference more accurately and also matches the prosodic difference that distinguishes
them in speech. It enables us, moreover, to capture the similarity between the uninte-
grated relatives and other elements that are semantically, prosodically, and syntactically
unintegrated with the rest of the sentence: these can all be subsumed under the concept
of supplement.
Syntactic representation of supplementation

A supplement, as we have seen, requires a semantically appropriate anchor: it cannot
occur, as a supplement, without the anchor. Thus if we drop the anchor from [10ib], for
example, the result is ungrammatical: ∗Which her mother gave to her, was in the safe. And
if we drop it from [10iib] ‘Carmen ’ takes on the status of an integrated dependent, the
subject: ‘Carmen ’ was first produced in 1875. For this reason, we take the anchor and its
supplement to form a construction – a supplementation construction. But the lack of
integration of the supplement into the syntactic structure means that there is no good
reason to treat the supplementation as a syntactic constituent. We propose, therefore,
that in the syntactic representation supplements should be kept separate from the tree
structure, related to their anchors by some different notational device, as in [12]:

[12]
Clause Supplement:
NP
i
Subject Predicate:
NP VP
Jill sold her internet shares in January a very astute move

ii Clause
Subject: Supplement: Predicate:

NP ClauseREL VP
Prenucleus: Nucleus:
NPi Clause
Subject: Predicate:
NP VP
the necklace which her mother gave her ––i was in the safe
In [12i], representing the structure of example [1iii], the supplement a very astute move
has the clause Jill sold her internet shares in January as its anchor: this is shown by the
broken line leading from the functional label ‘Supplement’ to the category label ‘Clause’.
Similarly in [12ii] the broken line shows that the relative clause is a supplement to the
NP the necklace.
Indicators
Supplements may contain indicators which serve to clarify the nature of their semantic
relation to the anchor. In the following examples, the supplement is enclosed in square
brackets and the indicator is marked with single underlining (with the anchor marked
with double underlining, as above):
[13] i No wonder that Pozzatti and I had at times difficulty in remembering the real
purpose of our presence, [namely, Cultural Exchange].
ii Mature connective tissues are avascular, [that is, they do not have their own blood
supply].
iii Much to everybody’s amazement, I got along splendidly with Max; [that is, until I
became an editor and hence a potential rival].
iv The poem asserts emotion without evoking it – [that is to say, it is sentimental].
v Other pairs of phonological subsystems also interact or overlap in this way; [for ex-
ample, duration sometimes figures in both the vowel system and the intonation].
vi She was highly critical of both proposals, [especially the second one].
Namely (like formal viz and to wit) indicates that the supplement has a specifying
function: the real purpose of our presence was Cultural Exchange. That is and that is to
say can be used in the same way, but they can introduce a wider range of supplement
types, including finite VPs or main clauses, with the supplement typically providing an
explanation of the anchor. It is also possible, however, for the supplement to serve as
a qualification to the anchor, as in [iii], where we understand: “or rather I got along
splendidly with him until I became an editor . . . ”.
Indicators are to some extent analogous to coordinators in that they link together the
elements in a construction. We will therefore generalise the contrast between syndetic
and asyndetic to the supplementation construction. The supplementations in [13] are
thus syndetic, while the corresponding constructions without the indicator are asyndetic.
Compare syndetic [13iv], for example, with asyndetic The poem asserts emotion without
evoking it: [it is sentimental].
One difference between indicators and coordinators, however, is that some at least of
the indicators can occupy non-initial position in the supplement:
[14] i It is these other differences between North and South – [other, that is, than those
which concern discrimination and social welfare] – which I chiefly discuss in this
paper.
ii The therapist’s level tone is bland and neutral – [he has, for example, avoided
stressing ‘you’].
Linear position
When the anchor is a main clause, the supplement may interrupt it as an interpolation,
or be loosely attached as an appendage at the beginning or end:
[15] i He claimed – and everyone believed him – that it was all my fault.
ii Having reviewed all the evidence, they decided he had no case to answer.
iii He sent her some flowers – the least he could do in the circumstances.
When the anchor is subclausal, there are two aspects of the position of the supplement
to consider: its position relative to the anchor, and its position relative to the main clause
that contains the anchor. Compare:
[16] i It is almost mandatory for anyone in the financial business to have ready – that is,
virtually real-time – access to sources of information about overseas markets.
ii Exeter clearly enjoyed full employment – as full, that is, as was attainable in the
conditions of the time.
iii When political art (that is, art which challenges the status quo in some way) suc-
ceeds it is most often by reinventing the real.
iv One question still needs to be considered: who’s going to pay for it all?
v Eric Hoffer once said that America was a paradise – the only one in the history of
the world – for workingmen and small children.
In [i] the supplement is adjacent to its anchor, the attributive adjective ready, but it is
still an interpolation with respect to the main clause that forms the sentence as a whole.
In [ii], by contrast, the supplement is an appendage to the main clause, but is separated
from its anchor. Examples [iii–iv] are like [i–ii] respectively, but have an NP as anchor.
But in [v] the supplement is not only an interpolation with respect to the main clause:
it is also located internally within its NP anchor.
Multiple supplementation
Because they are syntactically only loosely related to the rest of the sentence, supplements
naturally receive far less attention in grammars than do integrated constructions. It
should be emphasised, however, that in many kinds of speech and writing they are
extremely frequent. Moreover, sentences commonly contain more than one supplement:
[17] i A recent newspaper report said there were five Negroes in the 1960 graduating class
of nearly one thousand at Yale; that is, about one-half of one per cent, which looks
pretty ‘tokenish’ to me, especially in an institution which professes to be ‘national’.
ii Professionally a lawyer, that is to say associated with dignity, reserve, discipline, with
much that is essentially middle-class, he is compelled by an impossible love to exhibit
himself dressed up, disguised – that is, paradoxically, revealed – as a child, and,
worse, as a whore masquerading as a child.
In [i] there are three supplements. The first (that is, about one-half of one percent) has as
its anchor the preceding content clause, the complement of said. The second (the relative
clause which looks pretty ‘tokenish’ to me) is a supplement to the first, and then the third
(especially in an institution which professes to be ‘national’) is a supplement to the second.
Example [ii] is more complex. It begins with the supplement professionally a lawyer,
which is anchor to another supplement, that is to say associated with dignity, reserve,
discipline, with much that is essentially middle-class (which, we may observe, contains
two instances of asyndetic coordination, one between the two with PPs, one between the
three NPs dignity, reserve, discipline). The participial adjective disguised is anchor for the
supplement that is, revealed, which has another supplement, paradoxically, interpolated
within it. Finally, worse is a supplement preceding its anchor, as a whore masquerading
as a child.
5.2 The form of supplements

Supplements can be realised by a very wide range of categories. The indicator that is, in
particular, can link supplements of most categories to anchors of the same category. In
[4i–ii] above, for example, it links an adjective to an adjective, and a finite VP to a finite
VP, a versatility comparable to that of a coordinator. The following review of types of
supplement thus does not aim for exhaustive coverage.
(a) Relative clauses

[18] i We called in to see Sue’s parents, which made us rather late.
ii They’d given me two diskettes, both of which turned out to be defective.
Supplementary relative clauses can have a clause or various kinds of phrase as anchor.
In form they are a type of subordinate clause, but differ from integrated relative clauses
in ways described in detail in Ch. 12, §4.
(b) NPs
Specifying and ascriptive supplements to NP anchors
In supplementations with one NP as anchor and another as supplement, the relation
between the two is comparable to that between subject and predicative complement in a
§ 5.2 The form of supplements 1357
be clause. In particular, the distinction between specifying and ascriptive complements

applies also to supplements. Compare [19i–ii], for example, where double underlining
marks the subject of the clausal construction and the anchor in supplementation, single
underlining the predicative complement and the supplement:
[19] i a. The first contestant was Lulu. [specifying]
b. Kim Jones was a quite outstanding student. [ascriptive]
ii a. The first contestant, Lulu, was ushered on stage. [specifying]
b. Kim Jones, a quite outstanding student, won a scholarship to MIT. [ascriptive]
In the [a] examples Lulu is interpreted as specifying who the first contestant was, while
in [b] a quite outstanding student expresses a property that is ascribed to Kim Jones.
One formal difference in the case of supplementation is that specifying NPs accept the
indicators namely, that is, i.e., etc.: The first contestant, namely Lulu, was ushered on
stage.
Apposition
The construction with a specifying NP as supplement is known as apposition. More
particularly, this is the supplementary type of apposition, corresponding to the integrated
apposition of the opera ‘Carmen’ or my husband George (in [10iia/11ii] above). Thus the
appositive NP can be substituted for the whole supplementation yielding an entailment
of the original: [19iia] entails Lulu was ushered on stage.
Further examples of supplementary apposition are given in:
[20] i The murderer, the man with the scar, will be arrested soon.
ii A university lecturer, Dr Brown, was arrested for the crime.
iii A surprise present, a bouquet of roses, was delivered to my door.
iv An entire genre, the comedy thriller, has been made obsolete by the invention of the
mobile phone.
v A Seyfert galaxy – a galaxy with a brilliant nucleus – usually has a massive red-
shift.
Example [20i] is just like [19iia] except that the appositive is not a proper name but
an NP with a common noun as head. Example [20ii] shows that the relation between
supplementation and predication in a be clause is not always as straightforward as in
the pair [19ia/iia]. Indefinite NPs are certainly not excluded from functioning as subject
in a specifying be clause (cf. One problem is the cost), but they occur there much less
readily than in appositive supplementation. Thus the predicational counterpart of the
supplementation in [20ii] is anomalous: #A university lecturer was Dr Brown. The ap-
positive is nevertheless clearly of the specifying type, and can be matched up with the
predicational The university lecturer arrested for the crime was Dr Brown. In [20iii] both
NPs are indefinite, and again may be compared with predicational The surprise present
delivered to my door was a bouquet of roses.
The anchor NP in supplementary apposition is non-referential, in the sense of Ch. 5,
§8.3. In [20i–iii] the appositive NP is referential, but examples [20iv–v] show that it too
can be non-referential: in [iv] it is generic, and in [v] definitional.
In all the above examples the appositive is adjacent to the anchor, but where the
anchor is non-final in its clause the appositive may be separated from it. In such cases
the anchor is generally but not invariably indefinite:

[21] i I met a friend of yours at the party last night – Emma Carlisle.
ii The two dominical sacraments stand out from all the rest – namely baptism and
Holy Communion.
Ascriptive NP supplements
Further examples of NP supplements with an ascriptive interpretation are given in:
[22] i Her father, a die-hard conservative, refused to even consider the proposal.
ii Wilson, Secretary to the Cabinet, had informed the Prime Minister immediately.
iii Robert, no genius, is applying for a scholarship to Harvard.
This construction does not qualify as apposition because the supplement cannot al-
ways be substituted for the whole construction in such a way as to yield an entailment
of the original. In [ii], for example, the supplement is a bare role NP unable to take
over the subject function: ∗Secretary to the Cabinet had informed the Prime Minister
immediately. And No genius is applying for a scholarship to Harvard is clearly not an
entailment of [iii].
Ascriptive NPs are also found in such constructions as the following:
[23] i United will be playing at home, a not inconsiderable advantage.
ii A die-hard conservative, her father refused to even consider the proposal.
In [i] the anchor is not an NP, but a clause, or perhaps a VP: we understand that it is
an advantage to play at home. In [ii] the supplement precedes the anchor. Although
the subject NP her father is the predicand for the ascriptive NP (it is her father who
was a die-hard conservative), it is arguable that the anchor for the supplement is the
whole clause rather than just the subject NP, for we understand it as providing some
explanation for her father’s refusal to consider the proposal.
(c) Content clauses

Content clause supplements generally have an NP or another content clause as anchor:
[24] i The excuse he gave – that the train had been late – seemed to satisfy the boss.
ii I don’t know what its status is, that is, whether or not it is confidential.
In [24i] we again have a parallel with a specifying be clause: compare The excuse he gave
was that the train had been late. This construction, however, is distinct from apposition,
for the systematic entailment relation that is an essential feature of apposition does not
apply. Example [i] itself demonstrates this. It does not entail That the train had been
late seemed to satisfy the boss : what seemed to satisfy the boss was the excuse, not the
fact that the train had been late. As we noted in Ch. 5, §14.3, the same point applies
to integrated constructions where a content clause is a dependent of a noun, as in The
suggestion that they cheated is quite outrageous : the content clause here is a complement,
not an appositive modifier.
We thus need to distinguish two kinds of specifying supplement with an NP as anchor.
A specifying NP supplement is apposition, while the supplement in [24i] may be called
content-specifying. This type of specifying supplement can also be realised by other
categories than content clauses: see [25i] and [30i] below.
(d) Main clauses

Anchors for supplements with the form of main clauses again include NPs and clauses:
[25] i I raised a more serious objection : it’s against the law.
ii The universe is expanding, that is, the galaxies are receding from each other at im-
mense speeds.
iii If he says he can’t afford it – he usually does – tell him I’ll pay for us both.
In [i], with an NP anchor, the supplement clause is again of the content-specifying type.
It cannot substitute for the whole supplementation (∗I raised it’s against the law), and
hence cannot satisfy the condition for apposition.
Supplement main clauses in final position (especially those without any indicator)
are not clearly syntactically distinguishable from separate sentences. In speech, one can
use intonation to link a clause to what precedes as supplement to anchor, and in writing
punctuation serves to mark more explicitly whether a main clause is being presented as
a supplement to what precedes or as a separate orthographic sentence.
Parentheticals and tags
[26] i There are, I think, some grounds for optimism.
ii Such behaviour runs the risk, wouldn’t you agree, of alienating our customers.
iii You’re not proposing to go out in those trousers, are you?
The underlined expressions here have the form of main rather than subordinate clauses,
but they are syntactically distinct from canonical main clauses by virtue of being struc-
turally incomplete. Those in [i–ii] are known as ‘parentheticals’, while are you? in [iii]
is an interrogative ‘tag’. The form and interpretation of these constructions is discussed
in Ch. 10, §5.
(e) AdjPs
[27] i The editor, angry at the delay, resigned from the project.
ii Too afraid to venture out, Kim stayed barricaded in the house all week.
iii The editor has been sacked and, worse, they’re imposing strict censorship.
These constructions are similar to those with an ascriptive, as opposed to specifying,
NP supplement. Construction [iii] is exceptional in that worse has as its predicand not
an NP, but a clause (they’re imposing strict censorship); it is more usual to have a relative
construction – what/which is worse.
(f) Verbless clause

[28] i The tourists, most of them foreigners, had been hoarded onto a cattle truck.
ii The defendants sat in the dock, their heads in their hands.
iii The only household chore men excelled at was – drumroll please – taking out the
rubbish.
In [i] the supplement is comparable in function to a relative clause: compare who were
most of them foreigners (or most of whom were foreigners). If the supplement consisted
of foreigners on its own, it would be an ascriptive NP, like those in [22]; most of them,
however, does not function as a modifier in NP structure, so most of them foreigners must
be analysed as a reduced clause – one which could not stand alone as a sentence. The
supplement in [28ii] could likewise not stand alone, but differs in its internal structure in
that their heads is subject. An equivalent integrated construction would have a modifier
with the form of with + verbless clause: with their heads in their hands.
The supplement in [28iii], by contrast, could stand alone as a sentence. It is sim-
ply a fragmentary main clause (with the illocutionary force of a directive) used as an
interpolation.
(g) Non-finite clauses

[29] i All things considered, the result was reasonably satisfactory.
ii Having read the report, Max was sure he had nothing to worry about.
iii Not to put too fine a point on it, he’s an absolute layabout.
Example [i] illustrates the construction where the non-finite clause contains a subject.
Usually, however, the subject is understood; in most cases it is recoverable from the
anchor, as in [ii] (where it is Max who read the report), but it may also be recoverable
contextually, as in [iii], where it is the speaker who is putting it bluntly. For further
discussion of these constructions, see Ch. 14, §9.
(h) PPs and AdvPs

[30] i This final portrayal – of Stalin – does no credit to the author.
ii In my opinion, the idea isn’t worth pursuing.
iii The Dean, as you know, is totally opposed to the proposal.
iv Frankly, I think we could do better ourselves.
v They go – probably – by bus.
PPs can occur as supplement to an NP anchor, and here again the specifying–ascriptive
distinction applies. Example [i] is of the specifying type – more particularly, the content-
specifying type. It contrasts in the familiar way with the integrated construction this final
portrayal of Stalin.
The other supplements in [30] have a clause as anchor, and their function is very
much like that of a modifier. In cases like [v] there is a contrast with an integrated
construction, They probably go by bus : the latter has the adverb in its default position,
and it is only when set off intonationally as an interpolation that it can occur in the
position it occupies in [v]. For the rest, there is little difference between supplements
with a clause as anchor and modifiers, and in this book we generally treat them together,
using adjunct as a general term covering both.
The supplements differ from the most central modifiers in that they do not fall within
the scope of negatives in the anchor and cannot be made the complement of be in the it-
cleft construction. In [ii], for example, in my opinion is outside the scope of the negative
isn’t : the meaning can be glossed as “My opinion is that the idea isn’t worth pursuing”,
not “That the idea is worth pursuing isn’t my opinion”. Their inability to be foregrounded
in the it-cleft construction is seen in the ungrammaticality of examples like ∗It is as you
know that the Dean is totally opposed to the proposal.
(i) Interjections
[31] i Ah, so you were there after all!
ii Damn, we’ve missed the bus again!
The general definition of interjection is that it is a category of words that do not combine
with other words in integrated syntactic constructions, and have expressive rather than
propositional meaning. Central members of the interjection category in English are
such words as ah, hey, oh, oops, ouch, sh, ugh, wow (or the now dated alas), which in
their sole or primary meaning are used as expressive exclamations, on their own, or as
supplements with clausal anchors, as in [31i]. There are also a number of words such as
blast, bugger, damn, fuck which are primarily verbs, but which in supplements like that
in [ii] have lost their verbal meaning, and are best regarded as having been reanalysed
as interjections.70
(j) Clauses and phrases introduced by a coordinator

As we have noted, expressions introduced by the coordinators can be set apart from the
rest of the sentence like supplements instead of functioning as coordinates in integrated
constructions:
[32] i If he checks my story – and he probably will – I’ll be sacked.
ii It’s clear – and let’s not mince words – that he’s been embezzling the funds.
iii He told the manager – and her secretary – that the report was defamatory.
The status of the expression as a supplement rather than a coordinate is clearest in
examples like [i–ii], where it could not enter into a coordination relation with what
precedes. In [i] it could not coordinate with he checks my story because the latter is
a subordinate clause functioning as complement of if, whereas he probably will is a
main clause outside the scope of if. The structure is thus quite different from that
of If I tell that story and he checks it, I’ll be sacked, where the underlined sequence is a
coordination of clauses which together form the complement of if. It would be possible
to have a coordination reading if the underlined expression were placed at the end: If he
checks my story I’ll be sacked, and he probably will. In [ii] the underlined sequence could
not even be placed felicitously at the end: #It’s clear that he has been embezzling the funds
and let’s not mince words. The clauses are not sufficiently alike in terms of their meaning
to permit felicitous coordination.
Example [32iii] is closely related to the obviously coordinative construction He told
the manager and her secretary that the report was defamatory. The difference is that in
[32iii] and her secretary is set apart by dashes, and in the corresponding spoken version
it is set apart by intonation. It is this punctuational or prosodic separation that gives and
her secretary the status of a supplement in [32iii]: it is presented as secondary information
rather than being on a par with the manager. Nevertheless, it is a marginal and exceptional
kind of supplementation. Normally, supplements can be omitted without loss of well-
formedness, but this is not always so in the present case:
[33] The manager – and her secretary – have been charged with defamation.
If the supplement were omitted, the verb-form have would have to be replaced by has :
the supplement is relevant to determining the form of the verb, just as it is in the integrated
70
The verbal origin is more relevant in expressions like Damn these mosquitoes! or Fuck you!, where they have an
NP complement. Historically, the blast and damn constructions were understood with God as subject, but that
doesn’t match their normal interpretation now: there is no more reason to postulate an understood subject
in Blast you! than in Fuck you! It may be best to regard such words as exceptional interjections that combine
with an NP complement to form an interjection phrase.
structure the manager and her secretary. Note that in cases like this the dashes cannot be
replaced by parentheses: see Ch. 20, §5.
Supplements introduced by or are used to express reformulations or corrections:
[34] i I’m convinced it was masterminded by Tom – or Ginger, as everyone calls him.
ii They’ll be finishing on Tuesday – or at least that’s what they said.

Coordination and Supplementation PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Coordination and Supplementation PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

15

1 The structure of coordinate constructions 1275

4.3 Right nonce-constituent coordination (I gave $ 10 to Kim and $ 5 to Pat) 1341

1 The structure of coordinate constructions

1.1 Coordinations, coordinates, and coordinators

Coordination as a non-headed construction

Place of coordinators in the constituent structure

Kim and Pat

Bare and expanded coordinates

Marker: Modifier: Coordinate2: Modifier:

the guests and indeed his family too

1.2 Layered coordination (Kim and either Pat or Alex)

Marker: Coordinate1: Marker: Coordinate2:

Kim and either Pat or Alex

Similarly in [10ii]: the underlined sequence is a clause-coordination which realises the

Coord1 Coord2 Coord1 Coord2 Coord1 Coord2 Coord3

Coord1 Coord2 Coord1 Coord2

1.3 Syntactic constituency and semantic scope

Further examples of narrow scope coordination are given in:

1.3.2 Joint coordination (Kim and Pat are a happy couple)

Ambiguity between distributive and joint coordination

Distinctive grammatical features of joint coordination

(c) No expansion by modifier

least with respect to correlative both:

Other cases of joint coordination

Discrete vs not discrete can’t be identified with distributive vs joint

(b) Relation with clausal coordination

Coordinate1 Coordinate2 Mod Head:

Mod Head Mkr Coordinate Coordinate1 Coordinate2

Head Mkr Coordinate

long poems and essays long poems and essays

1.4 Order of coordinates

(d) Polarity and evaluation

2 Coordinators and related linking items

2.1 Properties of prototypical coordinators

[2] a. LEFT-LAYERED b. RIGHT-LAYERED c. UNLAYERED

(b) Coordinates must be syntactically alike

(c) Wide range of categories that can be coordinated

(d) Impossibility of fronting an expanded coordinate

(e) Across the board application of syntactic processes

(f) Only one coordinator per coordinate

(g) Coordinators must occupy initial position

2.2 And and or

2.2.1 Logical conjunction and disjunction

Inclusive and exclusive disjunction

Truth tables for conjunction and disjunction

i true true true true false

When or implicates “and’’

2.2.2 And and or in combination with negation

Temporal sequence: ‘X and Y ’ implicates “X and then Y”

(a) Not dependent on and

Consequence: ‘X and Y ’ implicates “X and therefore Y’’

Condition: ‘X and Y ’ implicates “if X then Y’’

Concession: ‘X and Y ’ implicates “despite X, Y’’

Temporal inclusion: ‘X and Y ’ implicates “X while Y’’

2.2.4 Asymmetric constructions, ii: or (Hurry up or we’ll be late, etc.)

Numerical approximations: two or three

2.2.5 Coordinator-marked reduplication (louder and louder, dozens and dozens)

2.3 Both and either

Binary and multiple coordination

Distributional restrictions on correlative coordination

Either and the exclusiveness implicature