A New Thinking of the Definition of Coordination

（天津工業大學，天津 300000）

【Abstract】：Traditional，coordination structure is regarded as two or more than two constituents combined with coordinator such as“and”“or”.While，we find many counter examples which do not fit this definition，so，we try to analyze the traditional definition and get a better definition.

【Key words】： coordination struction； definition

1.A Brief Introduction of Coordination

The term“coordination”also called coordinate structure or coordinating structure.It usually means a type of structure that two or more units of the same type are conjoined into a bigger one.The basic units can be words，phrases，and clauses，even sentences.

Here are some examples：

1.My husband supports and adores John Hill.

2.I realized that I was wrong and you were right.

3.My father and Your father have knew each other for a long time.

Coordinationis very common in human language，but there is a lot of cross-linguistic variation.Individual languages may have a great number of different coordination that related to each other in complex ways.

The particle or affix that serves to link the units of a coordination is called coordinator，and the unit of a coordination is called conjuncts.By far the most frequently occurring coordinator is andi.e.English and and its equivalents in other languages，e.g.et in French，and he（和）in Chinese.But coordination can also involve various other semantic types of linker，such asor and but.\"And\"-coordination is also called conjunctive coordination （or conjunction），\"or\"-coordination is also called disjunctive coordination （or disjunction），\"but\"-coordination is called adversative coordination.Examples of each of these three types are given：

He and I are friends.（conjunction）

You or he go to the other room（disjunction）

I like apple but he does not like apples.（adversative coordination）

Normally，the coordination is not studied but used as a tool to test structures.For example，we can usecoordination to testify whether a part of a sentence is a constituent.For example：

[John] and [the man] went to the store.

*[John] and [very blue] went to the store.

“John”and“the man”can be combined by“and”，so they belong to the same constituency.Because“the man”is a NP，therefore，“John”is also a NP.

2.The Re-definition of the Coordination Structure

2.1The Traditional Definition of Coordination Structure

Traditionally，according to Hu Zhuanglin in his linguistic textbook，the coordination structure is defined as“grouping together two or morecategoriesof the same type with the help of a conjunction such as and but and or.”（Hu：79） and“these two or more words or phrases or clauses have equivalent syntacticstatus，each of the separate of the separate constituents can stand for the original construction functionally.”（Hu：79）

And it is the also the reason that the coordination can be a tool to test the constituency.Because according to the definition only the equivalent syntactic units can be combined together.

However，when we have a further study of the coordination structure，we find there are many counter examples to this definition. For example：

a.Jack is stupid and a liar.

b.The policeman move to the building quickly and without a sound.

c.I hope fora invitation and optimisticabout my chances.

In the sentence a.“stupid”is an AP and“a liar”is a NP；in the sentence b，“move to the building quickly”is a VP and“without a sound”is a PP；in the sentence c，“hope for a invitation”is a VP and“optimistic about my chances”is an AP.

The given examples show the combined units do not need to be the same syntax category.So naturally， here is the question， if the constituents are not need to be in the same syntax category， what kind of constituents can be combined together？

2.2A New Development of the Definition of Coordination

According to the later part of Hu’s definition，conjuncts can function well in the separated sentences，in the givenexamples，the meaning of sentences can be regarded as the meaning of two related sentence’s meaning.

“Jack is stupid and liar”.=“Jack is stupid”+“Jack is a liar.”

“The policeman move to the building quickly and without a sound”=“The policeman move to the building quickly.”+“the policeman move to the building without a sound.”

No matter what kind of syntax categories the adjuncts are，they have the same verb in each of the sentences，which indicates that they have the same thematic relation with the verb.Or the adjuncts have the same thematic role in each sentence. And in the original sentence，the coordination structure also have the same thematic relation with the verb.

For example：

Jack is stupid and a liar.=Jack is stupid+Jack is a liar.

“Stupid”is the theme of the sentence“Jack is stupid”，and“a liar”is a theme in the sentence“Jack is a liar.”and also，other sentences of the given examples accord with the feature.So，it seems that the definition should be changed as“...these two or more words or phrases or clauses have equivalent thematic roles.”

While，latter，there are more examples that do not fix the changed definition.

a.Mary built and John bought the house.

b.John looked at and Mary read today’s copy of the Times.

c.Mary considers John a fool and Bill a wimp.

d.John regards professors as strange and politicians as creepy.

Some non-constituents are conjoined together：subject+verb；subject+object.The construction structures are not constituents in the sentences.

It is Mary built and John bought that the house.*

But，according to the definition，the construction structure emphasizes that the conjuncts are in the same category.If according to the above examples，they are even not constituents， how can we describe them？

At this time，we will first testify whether the adjust definition can be applied to this：

Mary built and John bought the house.

Mary built the house+John bought the house.

In this sentence，the meaning of the original sentence is equal to the meaning of the two sentences.

Mary built and John bought the house.=Mary built the house+ John bought the house.

Another example：

John looked at and Mary readtoday’s copy of the Times.

John looked attoday’s copy of the Times.+Mary read today’s copy of the Times.

As for this sentence， it is correct， the meaning of the original sentence is equal to the meaning of the two sentences.

John looked at and Mary read today’s copy of the Times.=John lookedat today’s copy of the Times.+Mary read today’s copy of the Times.

And the other two examples are also fix the discussion.

Mary considers John a fool and Bill a wimp.=Mary considers John a fool.+Mary considers Bill a wimp.

John regards professors as strange and politicians as creepy.=John regards professors as strange+John regards politicians as creepy.

So，it means this problem can also be considered in this method.In order to discuss the sentences more convenient，we rewrite the two sentences again.

John lookedat today’s copy of the Times.

Mary read today’s copy of the Times.

Though the unites are not constituents in each of the sentence，both“John”and “Mary”are the specifiers of IP and both“look”and“read”are the heads V.Though“John Looked”or“Mary read”is not a constituent， they have the same syntax statues in each of their sentences. And，we can alsotestify other sentences，and it turns out that all the sentences agree with the above discussion.

So we find that adjuncts of a coordination structure do not have to be constituents， and it only need to be a group of words or units that can have the same function in the separated sentences.

While，in the Li Xuefeng’s paper， he raised the counter examples about the methods of the analysis.

“sentences are conjoined.The dominant approach in generative syntactic theories indicates that phrasal coordination can be derived from sentential coordination by means of reduction rules.” “Much syntactic research focuses on formulating appropriate reduction rules.This has turned out to be quite difficult due to the potential for phrasal constructions.”

In his paper， he raised a counter example.

“Kim and Sandy are similar.”

In this sentence，when we try to divided the sentence in two sentences， we will face the difficult.

a.Kim are similar.* b.Sandy are similar*

The spec-head agreement rule is broken.“Kim”is the subject，and in the tree diagram，it is in the spec position，and it should agree with the the head.So in the sentence，it should be“Kim is similar and Sandy is similar”.Therefore，Li said the coordination structure may be not formed by the reduction rule.

While，we think，at first，because it is the reduction of the two sentences，the original sentence must be legal.So，the original sentences should be like these：

Kim is similar.

Sandy is similar.

In original sentence，the two subjects are combined together by the conjunction “and”.So，we think it is the conjunction that cause the spec-head agreement changed.

The conjunction have the grammatical feature of[plural].So，when“and”is used to combined these two words，it gives the whole phrase a[plural]feature.Therefore，the head also need to change to the[plural]form.By this way，the confusion is solved.

3.Conclusion

We first introduced traditional definition of coordination and then with the analysis of the paper，we have theadjust definition of the coordination：grouping together two or more units with the help of a conjunction such as and but and or.And these two or more words or phrases or clauses have equivalent thematic and syntactic statues in each of the separate sentences that can stand for the original construction functionally.

Reference：

[1]Larson，On the Double Object Construction[J]，Linguistic Inquiry，Summer， No.13.1988

[2]胡壯麟，語言學教程第四版[M]，北京：北京大學出版社（2014）

[3]梅德明，現代句法學[M]，上海：上海外語教育出版社（2008）

[4]胡建芳，漢語名詞并列結構的句法和語義[D]，湖南大學碩士學位論文（2013）

[5]李雪峰 生成語法框架下并列結構的句法結構及語法特征研究[D]，北京語言大學碩士學位論文（2011）

作者簡介：李浩鵬（1992-），男，漢族，河北邯鄲人，天津工業大學外國語學院外國語言學及應用語言學2015級碩士研究生 方向：語言學。