THREE COORDINATION 3.1 Syndetic vs.

Asyndetic Coordination Before we proceed to discuss the notion of coordination, some comment is in order: the term coordination is going to be used mainly in relation to what some grammarians call syndetic coordination, i.e. that type of structure where there are explicit indicators that there are two more elements linked by coordination . This type is placed in opposition to asyndetic coordination, where there is no indication other than a comma, that elements are coordinated. Consider example (1): (1) He looked at them sadly and reproachfully. (S-a uitat la ei cu tristee i repro.) which is an instance of syndetic coordination. Example (2), on the other hand, is an illustration of the asyndetic type: (2) He looked at them sadly, reproachfully. (S-a uitat la ei cu tristee, cu repro.) Example (1) exhibits coordination by means of AND, which is a coordinating conjunction or a coordinator. The terms linked by the coordinator are called conjuncts. We will use the term coordination in reference to the first type mentioned above, where a coordinator is overtly expressed (i.e. present) in the sentence. 3.2. Coordination & Subordination By definition, coordination (or conjoining) is a syntactic operation that puts together constituents of the same rank. Conversely, subordination (or Embedding) is a syntactic operation that involves rank-shifting, namely one constituent is subordinated to a higher-rank constituent. Consider the following examples where one can look at the same situation expressed differently from a syntactic point of view: (3) Hit my wife and youll die. (O loveti pe soia mea i vei muri.) (4) If you hit my wife, you will die. (Dac o loveti pe soia mea, vei muri.) Such examples, that have a lot in common from a semantic point of view, led grammarians to believe that coordination is the basic structure wherefrom subordination originated. Example (3) is an instance of coordination where constituents of the same rank are linked by means of the coordinating conjunction and. In example (4) one can notice a more complex structure, where the subordinating conjunction if plays a major part. We will come back to example (3) in a subsequent subsection. From the previously mentioned examples, we can already make at least two important remarks: a) that from a formal point of view, coordination differs from subordination in that it is realized by means of coordinating conjunctions.

b) that there might be important semantic similarities related to examples exhibiting coordinated, respectively subordinated constituents. However, we need to specify that, from a logical & semantic point of view, a major difference between coordination and subordination is that the information in subordinate clauses is not asserted, but presupposed. Compare: (5) John came back and gave her a piece of his mind. (John s-a ntors i i-a spus vreo dou.) (6) John gave her a piece of his mind after he came back. (John i-a zis vreo dou dup ce s-a ntors.) Unlike in the case of (5) where we are dealing with assertion, the subordinate adverbial clause of time contains a presupposition: We presuppose that the event of Johns coming back happened. From a pragmatic point of view it is to be remarked that example (3) will be found more frequently in instances of dialogue and spoken language as it is obviously characterized by a rather informal tone. 3.3. Sentence vs. Phrase Coordination Compare the following sentences: (7) I saw him yesterday and I had seen him the day before yesterday. (L-am vzut ieri i l-am vzut i alaltieri.) (8) I saw him yesterday and the day before yesterday. (L-am vzut ieri i alaltieri.) Example (7) is an instance of sentence coordination, the result of which is a COMPOUND SENTENCE. A compound sentence is to be placed in opposition to a COMPLEX SENTENCE, where there is a main clause and one or more subordinate clauses, as shown in (9). (9) If the authors and publishers of Dick Deadshot and such remarkable works were suddenly to make a raid on the educated class, were to take down the name of every man, however distinguished, who was caught at a University Extension lecture, were to confiscate all our novels and warn us to correct all our lives, we should be seriously annoyed. (G.K. Chesterton A Defence of Penny Dreadfuls) Example (8) exhibits an instance of Phrasal Coordination, where we are dealing with a compound constituent, yesterday and the day before yesterday. As one can easily notice, this constituent can be considered to be the result of compressing the longer and much less economical compound sentence from example (7). This phenomenon of compression and reduction is called ellipsis.

Ellipsis can be of two types: a) the so called forward ellipsis, when it operates on the second conjunct in the structure: (10) a. John writes poetry and Bill writes prose. (John scrie poezii i Bill scrie proz.) b. John writes poetry and Bill prose. (John scrie poezii i Bill proz.) In (10a) the second conjunct has been wiped out, or deleted, as can be seen in (10b). A deletion of the first conjunct would have been impossible in this case: (10) c. *John poetry and Bill writes prose.

b) backward ellipsis when it operates on the first conjunct in the structure: (11) a. John loves cigars and Bill hates cigars. (Lui John i plac trabucurile iar Bill le urte.) b. John loves and Bill hates cigars. (Lui John i plac iar Bill urte trabucurile.) c. *John loves cigars and Bill hates. Example (11b) predicts the correct deletion of the first conjunct, whereas (11c) shows the ungrammaticality of a deletion of the first conjunct in this case. Besides ellipsis, substitution is another reduction operation that can be applied to compound sentences. Consider the following: (12) I was advised to buy a pair of shoes and I bought a pair of shoes. (Am fost sftuit s cumpr o pereche de pantofi i am cumprat o pereche de pantofi.)

The common element, i.e. the predication buy a pair of shoes, can be reduced by substitution, as can be seen in (13) I was advised to buy a pair of shoes and I did so/it. (Am fost sftuit s mi cumpr o pereche de pantofi i asta am i fcut.)

These two reduction methods can operate within compound sentences due to the fact that sometimes it is more economical to use a reduced structure, than a longer repetitive one. So, these syntactical processes, having to do with a change performed in the structure of a sentence, are in fact motivated by a pragmatic principle, the so-called Principle of Economy, that favours concision and efficiency in the use of language. 3.4. Coordinating Conjunctions We can distinguish between three classes of coordinators: a) Copulative: and / both and /at once and / neither nor / as well as / no less than / not only but also, etc. We should also mention here rarer copulative coordinators, such as: alike and / nor nor / nor or : (14) His job is at once judicial and political

(15) (16)

(Slujba lui este i juridic i politic.) She went to sleep alike thankless and remorseless. (A plecat la culcare i nerecunosctoare i lipsit de remucri.) Nor sun, nor wind will strike to kiss thee. (Nici soare i nici vnt nu te-or atinge cu vreun srut.)

There are, of course, semantic restrictions on the types of clauses that can be coordinated. For instance, one cannot couple two sentences with completely different semantic content, as in: (17) a. *Lions are mammals and Tom bought a car. b. *I hate plumbers and you learn syntax.

In fact, the expressive function of coordination is, more often than not, to emphasize (semantic) parallelism or contrast, which is the case with b) adversative coordinators: but, and (18) I gave her the money but I didnt feel happy about it. (I-am dat banii, dar nu am fost mulumit de asta.) c) disjunctive coordinators: or, either or (19) She can either have the money or she can have the clothes. (Poate primi ori banii ori hainele.)

Some of the aforementioned coordinating conjunctions have correlatives (either or, both and, etc); some of them allow ellipsis of the subject (and, or; sometimes but, too): (20) a. I may see you tomorrow or (I) may phone later in the day. (S-ar putea s te vd mine sau s i telefonez mai ncolo.) b. He went to the safe and (he) took out the money. (S-a dus la seif i a scos banii.) c. I gave her the money but (I) didnt feel happy about it. (I-am dat banii dar nu mi-a convenit de loc.)

In certain cases, the ellipsis of the subject is even required (see e.g. 20 (b)). If the coordinating conjunction links two subordinate clauses, where the subordinator is repeated, ellipsis of the subject is no longer accepted: (21)* I didnt object to his proposal since it was very appropriate and since appealed to me. Another property some of the coordinators above share is the fact that they can link more than two clauses: (22) They both liked Susan and respected her, and cherished her. (Ei o plceau pe Susan, o respectau i o ndrgeau.) An important property shared by coordinating conjunctions has to do with the fact that sometimes, these coordinators can impose a subordinating shade of meaning upon the conjunctions, like in the example we discussed at the beginning of this section: (23) a. Hit my wife, and youll die.

(O loveti pe soia mea i ai s mori.) In example three one can read a conditional meaning behind the lines. In this case, if we were to rewrite the example, we could not say something like: (23) b. *Youll die, and hit my wife.

Whenever the coordinating conjunction adds a subordinating tinge of meaning to the conjuncts, the order of these conjuncts is fixed. From this point of view, one can differentiate between a) a symmetric use of coordinators where the order of the conjuncts is reversible: (24) a. I like and admire her. (mi place i o admir.) b. I admire and like her. (O admir i mi place.)

b) an asymmetric use of coordinators where the order of the conjuncts is irreversible: (25) a. I washed and ironed my pants. (Mi-am splat i clcat pantalonii.) b.* I ironed and washed my pants.

Lets cast a swift glance at the asymmetric uses some conjunctions may have: 1. asymmetric AND can impose different shades of subordinative meaning within the compound sentence: - chronological sequence (temporal implications) (26) He sliced and fried the potatoes. (First he sliced them and then he fried them) (A tiat cartofii i i-a prjit.)

cause-effect relation He heard an explosion and (therefore) phoned the police. (A auzit o explozie i a sunat la poliie.) He didnt pay the rent and he was evicted from their apartment. (<Because he didnt pay, he was evicted) (N-a pltit chiria i a fost dat afar din apartament.)

(27) (28)

if-then relation (supported by proper intonation) Give me the money and youll walk away safely. (If you do that, you will be safe) (D-mi banii i poi plec nevtmat.) concessive meaning (plus suitable intonation) John worked hard for the exam and he failed (Although he worked hard, he failed). (John a muncit din greu pentru examen i l-a picat.)

(29) -

(30)

while/whereas interpretation

(31)

Dr. Smith experiments with guinea pigs and Dr. Brown experiments with humans. (Doctorul Smith face experiene pe cobai iar doctorul Brown face experiene pe oameni.) (While Dr. Smith performs his experiments with guinea pigs, Dr. Brown does it with humans) 2. Asymmetric BUT implies a contrastive effect like in the case of symmetric BUT but this effect results from an unexpected consequence. Compare (32) a. Jim is brave but John is a coward. (Jim e viteaz dar John e un la.) b. Jim likes computers but John hates them. (Lui Jim i plac computerele dar John nu le suport.) (symmetric use)

to (33) Jim is jobless but he is happy. (Jim n-are serviciu dar e fericit.) (asymmetric use)

3. Asymmetric OR implies again an if-then relationship: (34) a. You leave my daughter alone, or Ill break your neck. (Ori mi lai fata n pace, ori i rup gtul.) b. Stop that noise, or youll be punished. (ncetezi cu zgomotul, ori vei fi pedepsit.)

This use is to be contrasted with the symmetric use of OR, which is in its turn of two types exclusive OR You can eat lobster, or you can eat caviar. (Poi s mnnci homar sau poi s mnnci caviar.)

(35)

inclusive OR If you have enough money you can eat lobster, or you can have caviar or both. (Dac ai destui bani poi s mnnci homar sau poi s comanzi caviar sau din amndou.)

(36)

3.5. Verb Agreement with Compound Subjects We shall discuss verb-agreement with compound subjects depending on the conjunction that is used: AND the compound subjects correlated by and are generally used with plural verbs: (37) a. Semantics and syntax are interrelated. (Semantica este strns legat de sintax.) b. Both your fairness and your kind nature have been appreciated.

(Au fost apreciate att corectitudinea ta ct i buntatea ta.) When the verb appears before the subject, both plural and singular forms are generally accepted. The singular form is however restricted to informal speech: (38) There was/were a man and a woman in the room. (n camer erau un brbat i o femeie.)

There are cases when the compound subject is not made up of the two semantically distinct conjunctions any more: (39) a. The hammer and the sickle was flying from the flagpole. (Secera i ciocanul fluturau sus pe steag.) b. Fish and chips is my favorite food. (Petele cu cartofi prjii este felul meu de mncare preferat.)

In (39) the subject contains two conjuncts that are perceived as one semantic unit, hence the singular form of the verb. OR, EITHER OR, NOT (ONLY) BUT ALSO compound subjects are subject to the rule of agreement by proximity: the verb agrees with the near-most conjunct: (40) a. Not John, but his two brothers are to blame. (Nu John este de vin, ci cei doi frai ai lui.) b. Not Johns brother but he is to blame. (Nu fratele lui John, ci el este de vin.)

NEITHER NOR compound subjects accept both the singular and the plural form of the verb since from a syntactical point of view Neither nor resembles either or, but semantically it is the negative counterpart of both and: (41) Neither he nor his wife have/has arrived. (N-au ajuns nici el i nici soia lui.)

3.6. Key Concepts Coordination is defined in opposition to subordination, as being a syntactic process where elements of the same rank are conjoined. This section also attempts to draw attention upon certain points of similarity between coordination and subordination, especially those related to the asymmetric uses of coordinating conjunctions. As shown, certain compound sentences can be reformulated as complex ones, namely as a main clause plus a subordinate one. Emphasis is also laid on the reductive methods that can be applied to compound sentences or to compound phrases: ellipsis (or deletion) and substitution.