This chapter is devoted to throwing some visible radiation on the theoretical facets of the research work. The term coordination is cardinal to this survey. Nevertheless, derivations of coordination as a subdivision of lingual survey, how it has been explained and used in other genres will be looked at in order to set-up a conceptual model that would assist to do things clear and lay the foundation for subsequent analysis.
2.1. The Concept in Focus
2.1.1 Coordination
Haspelmath ( 2000 ) defines coordination as “ syntactic buildings in which
two or more units of the same type are combined into larger units and still have the same
semantic dealingss with other environing elements ( 1 ) . ”
Bloomfield ‘s similar definition of coordination contrasts it with subordination:
Endocentric buildings are of two sorts, co-ordinative ( or series ) and
subordinating ( or attributive ) . In the former type the attendant phrase belongs to the same form-class as two or more of the components… In subordinating
endocentric buildings, the attendant phrase belongs to the same form-class as one of the components, which we call the caput. ( 195 ) .
Both of these definitions are syntactic, and stress the balanced syntactic
relationship between coordinated points. In add-on, both definitions province that the
construction ensuing from coordination is of the same type ( semantic in Haspelmath ‘s
definition, syntactic in Bloomfield ‘s ) as the co-ordinated points. Yuasa and sadock in understanding with the observation of Bloomfield farther reference 5 standards that confirms the presence of coordination:
Reversibility: altering the order of the conjuncts does non impact the truth conditions.
Application of the co-ordinate construction restraint: the components of one clause can non be questioned individually.
No backward anaphora: a pronoun in the first clause can non co refer with a full NP in the 2nd clause.
Multiple conjuncts are possible.
All the conjuncts are every bit asserted. ( 87-111. )
Halliday and Hasan ( 1976 ) describe coordination as an intrasentential structural device. However, they do admit that sets of sentences similar to coordination make be particularly if they portion parallel construction, and position coordination as a construction of the paratactic type ( 223 )
Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen and Ramm, W. ( 2005 ) describe coordination as being used as a agency of clause combine and information packaging at discourse degree and differs from a sentence sequence by explicitly teaching the reader to ‘keep the two propositions together ‘ in discourse processing. For illustration in set uping a discourse construction, licencing the illation of certain discourse dealingss to keep between the conjuncts, while barricading others. As a agency of building ( more ) composite ( clause/VP ) components from simpler 1s of the same syntactic class, coordination can be compared to certain sorts of adjunction, i.e. syntactic subordination. ( 175-213 ) .
Coordination has been viewd by assorted bookmans as procedures used by linguistic communications to unite units to do other units. Or as a portion of the basic efficiency of linguistic communication through which simple units like phrases and the simple sentence are re-cycled to do longer and possibly more complex units.
Devils ( 2009 ) re-categorizes coordinators as bing in a semantic Cline with disjuncts. By this he means a graduated table of changing degrees of coordination: while coordinators such as and set up an tantamount and non-adverbial relationship between two clauses such that neither is low-level to the other, disjuncts like since set up some grade of indirectness and an adverbial relationship between the clauses ( 42:1076-1136 ) .
2.2. Types of Coordination
Syndetic and asyndetic coordination
Haspelmath and Quirk et al define asyndetic and syndetic coordination as Coordinate buildings missing open coordinator ( asyndetic coordination ) or holding some open associating devices such as concurrences ; and, but, or, nor, for, so, yet. ( syndetic coordination ) .
a ) . Slowly and stealthily, he crept towards his victim.
And Asyndetic coordination as when the relationship of coordination is non marked overtly ;
a ) . Slowly, stealthily, he crept towards his victim.
Though there exist a comparatively fixed order for subclasses of adjectives in asyndetic coordination, but the order is said to be comparatively free when a coordinator is present.
2.3 Asyndetic Coordination
2.3.1 Asyndeton
Despite its formidable name asyndeton is nil more than a different manner of managing a list or a series, Asyndeton uses no concurrences and separates the footings of the list with commas. It differs from the conventional intervention of lists and series, which is to utilize merely commas between all points except the last two, these being joined by a concurrence. Asyndeton is linked to asyndetic coordination. Asyndeton produces a hurried beat in the sentence.
Corbett ( 1971 ) cites Aristotle ‘s observation that ‘asyndeton was particularly
appropriate for the decision of a discourse, because there, possibly more than in
other topographic points in the discourse, we may desire to bring forth the emotional reaction that
can be stirred by, among other agencies, beat ‘ , ( 470 ) .
Asyndeton is the case of conjoining buildings in which there are no coordinators ( besides referred to as apposition ) ; monosyndeton, in which there is one coordinator ; and polysyndeton, in which more than one coordinator is used.
2.4. Syndetic Coordination
2.4.1 Polysyndeton
Polysyndeton as a manner of managing a list or a series, places a concurrence ( and, or ) after every term in the list ( except, the last ) . It differs from the conventional intervention of lists and series, which is to utilize merely commas between all points except the last two, these being joined by a concurrence. Polysyndeton is linked to Syndetic coordination, as opposed to Asyndeton which is linked to Asyndetic coordination.
2.5 Monosyndetic and Bisyndetic Coordination
Coordination ‘s may either hold a individual coordinator ( monosyndetic ) or two
coordinators ( bisyndetic ) .
Haspelmath ( 2000 ) proffers some relevant constituency trials for monosyndetic coordination:
( I ) Intonation: In certain instances, English and signifiers an modulation group
with the undermentioned phrase, non with the predating phrase.
( two ) Pauses: In English, it is much more natural to hesitate before and
than after and.
( three ) Discontinuous order: In particular fortunes, the coordinands may
be separated by other stuff, as when a coordinand is added as an
reconsideration. In English, the coordinator must be following to the 2nd
coordinand ( e.g. My uncle will come tomorrow, or my aunt ) . Not my uncle or will come tomorrow, my aunt.
( four ) ( Morpho ) phonological alternations: When the coordinator or one of
the coordinand undergoes ( morpho ) phonological alternations in the
building, this is grounds that they form a component together. ( 121 )
2.6. The Nature of Coordination
2.6.1 Contrastive Coordination
2.6.2 Conjunction and Disjunction
Haspelmath ( 2000 ) states that many linguistic communications distinguish between normal coordination such as A and B, X or Y, which may besides be referred to as concurrence and what might be called incompatible coordination: both A and B, either X or Y. The semantic difference he views is that in incompatible coordination, it is emphasized that each coordinand belongs to the coordination and each of them is considered individually.
Therefore, it creates opposing impression of intending inherent in the text because two things can non be individually similar. And like concurrence, Haspelmath respect disjuncture markers as “ frequently polyfunctional ” .
Devils ( 2009 ) states that “ Disjuncts expose some coordinator-like belongingss, so they are grouped on a continuum with coordinators ” ( 1089 ) .
Halliday and Hassan see concurrence as a cohesive device that relates sentences.
Conjunctive elements they province, are cohesive non in themselves but indirectly, by virtuousness of their specific significances ; they are viewed as non chiefly devices for making out into the predating text, but express certain significances which presuppose the presence of other constituents in the discourse, as likewise described by Bloor and Bloor ( 1995 ) .Halliday and Hasan ( 1976 ) indicate that “ conjunctive dealingss are non tied to any peculiar sequence in the look ” .
However, amongst the coherence organizing devices within text, concurrence is seen as the least straight identifiable relation. Conjunction acts as a semantic cohesive tie within text in four classs:
Additive, oppositive, causal and temporal. Linear concurrence Acts of the Apostless to structurally co-ordinate or nexus by adding to the presupposed point and are signaled through “ and, besides, excessively, moreover, to boot ” , etc. Linear concurrence may besides move to contradict the presupposed point and is signaled by “ nor, and… non, either, neither ” , etc. Adversative concurrences act to bespeak “ contrary to outlook ” ( 250 ) and are signaled by “ yet, though, merely, but, in fact, instead ” , etc. Causal concurrence expresses “ consequence, ground and intent ” and is signaled by “ so, so, for, because. Adversative coordination seems ‘always binary ‘ ; – it must dwell of two coordinands, so is described as causal and so is described as temporal. ( 227 )
Halliday and Hassan acknowledge that concurrence is derived from coordination, they argue that “ Conjunction aˆ¦ is non merely coordination extended so as to run between sentences ” , observing that one difference between co-ordinate and and conjunctive and is that co-ordinate and can associate any figure of points, whereas conjunctive and links braces of sentences.A They view concurrences as showing one or other of a little figure of really general dealingss ( 238 ) .
In the same vena Halliday and Matthiessen ( 1999 ) in relation to its cohesive map province that “ In concurrence, the assorted logical-semantic dealingss of enlargement that construe clause complex constructions aˆ¦ are deployed alternatively as a beginning of coherence ” .
They argue that among other resources which construe clauses and clause composites into longer stretches of discourse without the formality of farther grammatical construction are concurrence and lexical coherence ( 530-31 ) .
Halliday and Matthiessen in widening the impression of linguistic communication resources as tools of widening and making out into intending position that specific sorts of enlargement or projection can be construed as either paratactic or hypotactic, take a firm standing that some degree of partial association exist, where some signifier of combinations are favored, while others are disfavored.
They explain another sort of enlargement in footings of conjunctive dealingss using such concurrences as and, or, but, alternatively, besides ; as an linear, alternate, replacing, reserve, contrast. A 3rd sort occurs with the usage of adverbs operation as concurrences taging either the enhancing clause or correspondingly the one being enhanced ( 520-1 ) .
Scott Drellishak ( 2004 ) in his thesis: “ A Survey of Coordination Strategies in the World ‘s Languages ” quotes Gleitman ( 1965 ) as sing concurrence as one of many syntactic procedures that serve the intent of bespeaking contrast or cut downing repeat ; conjoined sentence that does non bespeak contrast or cut down repeat is described as non functioning any intent. ( 268 )
2.7. Phrasal Coordination
If two looks have different semantic functions it will non be possible to organize them. Although it is sometimes said that the coordinands must belong to the same phrasal class ; for case, ( tea ) NP or ( in a Nigerian Restaurant ) PP is said to be ill-formed because it consists of an NP and a PP. However, coordination of different phrasal classs is frequently possible when both have the same semantic function.
Besides in phrasal coordination, “ the order of conjoint words can be influenced by the inclination for the shorter word to come foremost and within phrasal coordination, there can be eclipsis of the clincher ” ( Quirk et Al: 610 ) .
2.8. Clausal Coordination
When two or more clauses are coordinated, certain clause components are frequently ellipted from all but one of the clauses. More frequently than non, the consequence of eclipsis is no more than to propose a closer connexion between the content of the clauses but sometimes the consequence is to bespeak that there is a combined procedure instead than two separate procedures.
And and or as clause linkers are restricted to initial place. Coordinated clauses with and and or are consecutive fixed in relation to the old clause and can non be transposed without bring forthing ungrammaticality in sentence construction, a clause incorporating a conjunct may be linked to a preceding clause by one of the coordinating concurrences ( and, or, but ) but non all the conjuncts admit each coordinator ( Quirk et al:552-553 ) .
2.9. Taxis in coordination
The term taxis in English grammar means ‘arrangement ‘ of units of thoughts, thought, sentence components, constructions that are grammatical concepts. In English grammar, taxis is categorized into two wide parts:
I ) . Parataxis
II ) . Hypotaxis
Parataxis refers to the organisation of clausal units on a parallel degree using organizing concurrences as the instance may be. The halfway point of coordination is considered to be parataxis. The elements placed side by side does non exhibit a dependence relation and exists in no specified order of happening.
Lakoff ( 1971 ) and Martin ( 1983 ) position Parataxis as the trademark of coordination. Most frequently, the equality of the clauses is said to be clear both grammatically and semantically. Different units can be joined with Coordination at any degree. The conjoint units, elements therefore linked exhibit same semantic and syntactic class. This case of conjoining equal grammatical constructions ( coordination ) organize our focal point in this survey and perverts from Hypotaxis which is the organisation of components on a dependence relation with the usage of subordinating concurrences ; it forms the footing of subordination in English grammar.
2.10. Symmetric and asymmetric coordination
Coordinate buildings are said to hold symmetrical belongingss such that conjuncts are paratactically construed, that a conjunct is non subordinated to another conjunct, that conjuncts have the same syntactic and semantic map ; on the other manus they have asymmetric belongingss such as bid relationship between the first and the 2nd conjuncts. This instance is referred to as ‘balanced and imbalanced ‘ instance of coordination.
2.11. Approachs to Coordination Analysis and Coordination in Different Genres
In poetic texts, the survey of coordination is rather thin and limited. For case Miller ( 2007 ) explores scriptural Hebrew poesy and the relationship of coordination to verbal gapping is what forms her point of focal point. She comes up with the findings that asyndetic coordination is the trademark of scriptural Hebrew poesy and particularly early poesy ( 41-60 ) .
Miller ‘s principal contains 123 lines from the book of Isiah.
Svetlana Petrova & A ; Michael Solf ( 2008 ) explore ‘rhetorical dealingss and verb arrangement in the early Germanic linguistic communications ‘ . It presents a historical survey about the differentiation between coordination and subordination in discourse ; it focuses on Old High German and on other early Germanic linguistic communications.
Petrova and Solf see other sorts of informations, largely from indicative moods, in support of the claim that verb arrangement serves certain discourse maps in early Germanic linguistic communications.
They come up with the determination that Verb looking seems to hold a clear functional intent, as it is used to tag episode boundaries in Old High German. The survey goes farther in placing some correlativities between verb arrangement and discourse-structuring phenomenon in Old English, Old Saxon, and Old Norse, with similar discourse-structuring maps. A cross -linguistic attack is adopted in the survey as opposed to functional attack in analysis.
Ash Asudeh and Richard Crouch ( 2002 ) examine ‘Coordination and Parallelism in Glue Semantics ‘ researching points of convergence and divergency between attack to coordination and similar Categorial Grammar ( CG ) approaches. The research discusses correspondence in connexion with the Coordinate Structure Constraint. The paper presents an history of the semantics of coordination, framed within the theory of Glue Semantics.
The end of a GLUE derivation as explicated in the survey is to devour all the lexical premises to bring forth a individual decision ; saying the significance of the sentence. Further asseverating that Semantic ambiguity consequences when there are alternate derivations from the same set of premises.
This survey portions common involvement with the present 1 as both relates coordination to cases of coherence. While this survey argues for glue attack to coordination the present survey differs on the land of functional attack of analysis.
David Bell ( 2007 ) examines both the frequence and map of SIA ( sentence initial and ) and SIB ( sentence initial but ) in academic authorship and its importance in understanding linguistic communication in literary texts.
While coordinator and is more frequent in academic prose than but, SIA is much less frequent than SIB. Collected informations show a pronounced difference in the usage of SIA and SIB across different genres of academic composing with SIA and SIB being far more prevailing in the humanistic disciplines diaries. Furthermore, the survey shows that SIA, when compared with other linear conjunctions such as moreover, moreover, in add-on, etc. , is the most often happening linear marker in academic authorship, while SIB is the 2nd most preferable conjunction after nevertheless.
With respect to map, the survey goes on to reason that both SIA and SIB in academic authorship map in three really similar ways: ( I ) to tag off a discourse unit by bespeaking the last point on a list ; ( two ) to bespeak the development of an statement ; and ( three ) to bespeak a
discontinuity or displacement with a old discourse unit. This is in line with Halliday and Hassan ‘s ( 1975 ) position as respect the map of SIA and SIB. The survey farther asserts that whereas the most common map of SIA is that of bespeaking the last point on a list, the most common usage of SIB is in the development of statements. It argues that SIA and SIB perform particular maps than the options of asyndetic or “ zero ” coordination, the usage of discourse markers that portion their wide semantic map: Furthermore, moreover, in add-on, and nevertheless, severally, or intrasentential coordination can non execute.
The survey suggestions that the characteristics allow SIA and SIB to precede a wider scope of lexico-grammatical units such as questions, stance adverbs and other discourse conjunctions and to make a tighter cohesive tantrum. It remarks that it is these particular characteristics of coherence which are held to explicate the happening of SIA and SIB in academic authorship. The focal point here is on the usage of SIA and SIB in academic discourse, it excluded happenings of SIA and SIB in academic authorship from other manners such as in transcripts of conversations, in quotation marks from fiction or in poetic texts which is the exclusive focal point of the present research.
Halliday and Hasan ( 1975 ) on SIA as portion of their larger treatment of concurrence as one cohesive device in the construct of coherence describes coordination as an intrasentential structural device while concurrence is seen as a cohesive device that relates sentences. In their scrutiny of conjuncts, SIA is described as signaling an linear relationship between sentences while but is described as an oppositive. Halliday and Hasan note that one difference between co-ordinate and, and conjunctive and, is that co-ordinate and can associate any figure of points, whereas conjunctive and links braces of sentences ( 235 ) .
Halliday and Hasan separate a farther usage of SIA, which they suggest comes closest to its structural map as a coordinator, they call it “ ‘next in a series ‘ ” ( 236 ) .
They suggest that another illustration would be “ a series of points all lending to one general statement. ” In this map, Halliday and Hasan argue that And retains some of the retrospective or retrojective consequence, i.e. ‘projecting backwards ‘ that and has as a coordinator ( 236 ) .
Here, SIA is viewed as signaling non the last point on a list but instead the continuance of an on-going list of points. The survey explicates that nevertheless, apart from the instances cited above where cohesive And operates likewise to coordinator and, the typical context for SIA is one where “ there is a entire, or about entire displacement in the participants from one sentence to the following, and yet the two sentences are really decidedly portion of a text ” ( 235 ) .
Another common context in narrative fiction for this displacement is at the boundary of duologue and narrative.
What have been shown here is that SIA and SIB provide particular characteristics of coherence that alternate signifiers of coordination do non.
Schiffrin ( 1986, 1987, 2006 ) examines utterance and turn-initial and in conversation. She argues that and has two functions in talk: An conceptional function where it coordinates thought units – what she calls a “ discourse coordinator ” function, and an interactive or matter-of-fact or discourse marker function where it continues a talker ‘s action, i.e. taging the talker ‘s approaching vocalization as a continuance of the content and construction of an interaction, and these two maps most frequently occur at the same time ( 1987: 128 ) . As a marker of functionally differentiated thought units, the presence of and signals that the talker identifies an approaching unit as structurally coordinated or tantamount to a anterior unit. In this manner, and can distinguish among other things in narrative, support and place in statements and accounts, and can besides distinguish discourse subjects. However, Schiffrin stresses that placing the nature of these units “ depends on textual information beyond and itself ” ( 1987: 141 ) .
In Summary Halliday and Hasan ( 1976 ) , and Schiffrin ( 1986, 1987, 2006 ) , see SIA as bracketing discourse units, go oning discourse units, or signaling a displacement between discourse units ; and what determines the discourse map of these signaled discourse units is constructed by the interaction of the lingual belongingss of and with the discourse context in which it occurs.
Sotirova ( 2004 ) , utilizing the plants of D.H. Lawrence, has argued that SIA, every bit good as other conjunctions, are used by Lawrence to signal perspectival displacements in free indirect manner ( 227 ) .
Huttar ( 2002 ) has examined the usage of both discourse-initial and ( DIA ) and SIA in poesy. Huttar argues that DIA is frequently used to set up an imagined context already in advancement or imagined anterior events from which the present vocalization is understood to go on. An highly common signifier of DIA is that of a inquiry addressed in response to an implied middleman ‘s statement and frequently showing surprise at the old implied statement.
Cotter ( 2003 ) on the other manus examines the usage of SIA and SIB in newspapers over a one hundred twelvemonth period. She used a 100,000-word principal of newspaper articles – a mixture of local and national syndicated articles, general intelligence, and characteristic articles – published between 1900 and 1995. Over this period, she noted an increasing happening of SIA/B and coincident diminution in temporal conjunctions. Among other factors, Cotter argues that these conjunctions help to make local and planetary coherency in intelligence narrations, introduce new talkers and thoughts, and associate a series of short paragraphs. Cotter sees this increasing usage of SIA/B as declarative mood of a historical displacement from more text-centered to more reader-centered prose.
Dorgeloh ( 2004 ) looked at SIA in a principal of British English made up of LOB ( Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen, 1961 ) and FLOB ( Freiburg Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen, 1991 ) . She indicates a diminution in the usage of SIA in both academic and newspaper authorship. From her analysis she concludes that in written Modern English, SIA, where it does occur, Markss functional displacements on a more planetary degree of discourse ( 1777 ) .
From the literature reviewed, it becomes apparent that there is prevalence in the usage of linear and in academic discourse, conversation, literary texts, newspapers, and in the humanistic disciplines and societal scientific discipline Fieldss by and large. In frequence and map additive and is reckoned to be the most often happening, followed by but ; in poetic texts functionally, Huttar argues that and is frequently used to set up an imagined context already in advancement or imagined anterior events from which the present vocalization is understood to go on while Halliday and Hasan ( 1976 ) , and Schiffrin ( 1986, 1987, 2006 ) , regard and as bracketing discourse units, go oning discourse units, or signaling a displacement between discourse units.
The subsequent analysis consider to what extent the frequence and functional averments are based.
This research departs from much of the old surveies, by showing a functional lingual analysis which was proffered by Halliday et Al. Earlier researches frequently focus on the frequence with which certain lingual characteristics occur, yet another description focuses on the maps of those characteristics. Functional descriptions of linguistic communication – like the one to be adopted here, are more valuable since they offer some apprehension of communicative intent and, therefore, explain the usage and frequence of lingual characteristics.
