The Syndetic And Asyndetic Coordination English Language Essay

The syndetic And Asyndetic Coordination English Language EssayThis chapter is devoted to throwing almost miniature on the theoretical aspects of the research work. The depot coordination is central to this study. Nevertheless, derivations of coordination as a branch of linguistic study, how it has been explained and rehearsed in a nonher(prenominal) genres will be looked at in order of magnitude to set-up a conceptual framework that would military service to find things weak and lay the foundation for subsequent epitome.2.1. The Concept in FocusCoordinationHaspelmath(2000) defines coordination as syntactical constructions in which some(prenominal) or much(prenominal)(prenominal) units of the selfsame(prenominal) part ar combined into larger units and still contri ande the samesemantic relations with different surrounding elements (1).Bloomfields similar interpretation of coordination contrasts it with subordinationEndocentric constructions argon of twain kinds , co-ordinative (or serial) andsubordinative (or attributive). In the author type the resultant phrase belongs tothe same form-class as two or more of the dowersIn subordinativeendocentric constructions, the resultant phrase belongs to the same form-class as unity(a) of the constituents, which we c every(prenominal) the head. (195).Both of these definitions ar syntactic, and emphasize the balance syntacticrelationship surrounded by incorporated percentage points. In addition, both definitions claim that thebody structure resulting from coordination is of the same type (semantic in Haspelmathsdefinition, syntactic in Bloomfields) as the arranged items. Yuasa and sadock in agreement with the observation of Bloomfield moreover mention 5 criteria that confirms the presence of coordinationReversibility changing the order of the conjuncts does non affect the truth conditions.Application of the unionize structure constraint the constituents of one article bathroomnot be ques tioned individu onlyy.No retroflex anaphora a pronoun in the first article hind endnot co conjure up with a full NP in the entropy clause.Multiple conjuncts are possible.All the conjuncts are equ wholey asserted. (87-111.)H whollyiday and Hasan describe coordination as an intrasentential morphological device . However, Halliday and Hasan do acknowledge that sets of metres similar to coordination do exist curiously if they share parallel structure, and view coordination as a structure of the paratactic type (223)Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen and Ramm, W (2005) describe coordination as being used as a means of clause combining and information packaging at intervention level and differs from a sentence sequence by explicitly instructing the ratifier to keep the two propositions together in word bear uponing. For example in establishing a discourse structure, licensing the inference of certain discourse relations to extend amid the conjuncts, while blocking differents. As a m eans of constructing (more) interlocking (clause/VP) constituents from simpler ones of the same syntactic category, coordination can be compared to certain kinds of adjunction, i.e. syntactic subordination. (175-213).Coordination has been viewd by various scholars as processes used by manner of speakings to combine units to make other units. Or as a part of the basic efficiency of language through which simple units similar phrases and the simple sentence are re-cycled to make longer and perhaps more Gordian units. deuce (2009) re-categorizes coordinators as animate in a semantic cline with disjuncts. By this he means a scale of varying levels of coordination while coordinators such(prenominal) as and establish an uniform and non-adverbial relationship mingled with two clauses such that n all is subordinate to the other, disjuncts like since establish some degree of indirectness and an adverbial relationship amongst the clauses (421076-1136).2.3. Types of Coordinationsynd etic and asyndetic coordinationHaspelmath and Quirk et al define asyndetic and syndetic coordination as Coordinate constructions lacking overt coordinator (asyndetic coordination) or having some overt linking devices such as conjunctions and, but, or, nor, for, so, to that extent.(syndetic coordination).a). Slowly and stealthily, he crept towards his victim.And Asyndetic coordination as when the relationship of coordination is not marked overtlya). Slowly, stealthily, he crept towards his victim.Though in that respect exist a relatively fixed order for subclasses of adjectives in asyndetic coordination, but the order is utter to be relatively free when a coordinator is attest.2.4. Asyndetic CoordinationAsyndeton in spite of its formidable name asyndeton is nothing more than a different elbow room of handling a harken or a series,Asyndeton uses no conjunctions and separates the term of the itemisation with commas. It differs from the conventional treatment of lists and series , which is to use only commas between all items except the last two, these being joined by a conjunction. Asyndeton is conjugate to asyndetic coordination. Asyndeton produces a hurried rhythm in the sentence.Corbett (1971) cites Aristotles observation that asyndeton was especiallyappropriate for the conclusion of a discourse, because at that place, perhaps more than inother places in the discourse, we whitethorn want to produce the emotional reaction thatcan be stirred by, among other means, rhythm, (470).Asyndeton is the instance of conjoining constructions in which t here(predicate) are no coordinators ( in any case referred to as juxtaposition) monosyndeton, in which there is one coordinator and polysyndeton, in which more than one coordinator is used.2.5. Syndetic CoordinationPolysyndetonPolysyndeton is a way of handling a list or a series. Polysyndeton places a conjunction (and, or) after every term in the list (except, the last). It differs from the conventional treatment of lists and series, which is to use only commas between all items except the last two, these being joined by a conjunction. Polysyndeton is linked to Syndetic coordination , as opposed to Asyndeton which is linked to Asyndetic coordination.Monosyndetic and Bisyndetic CoordinationCoordinations may either have a single coordinator (monosyndetic) or twocoordinators (bisyndetic).Haspelmath (2000) further proffers some relevant constituency tests for monosyndetic coordination(i) Intonation In certain cases, English and forms an pitch contour groupwith the following phrase, not with the earlier phrase.(ii) Pauses In English, it is much more natural to pause before andthan after and.(iii) Discontinuous order In special circumstances, the coordinands maybe separated by other material, as when a coordinand is added as anafterthought. In English, the coordinator must be next to the secondcoordinand (e.g. My uncle will sum up tomorrow, or my aunt). Not my uncle or will come tomorrow, my aun t.(iv) (Morpho)phonological alternations When the coordinator or one ofthe coordinand undergoes (morpho)phonological alternations in theconstruction, this is evidence that they form a constituent together. (121)2.6. The Nature of CoordinationContrastive Coordination concurrence and DisjunctionHaspelmath (2000) states that numerous languages distinguish between normal coordination such as A and B, X or Y, which may also be referred to as conjunction and what might be called contrastive coordination both A and B, either X or Y. The semantic digression he views is that in contrastive coordination, it is emphasized that each coordinand belongs to the coordination and each of them is considered separately .Hence, it creates opposing legal opinion of signification inherent in the schoolbook because two things cannot be separately similar. And like conjunction, disjunction bell ringers are practically poly practicable .Dickens (2009) states that Disjuncts display some coordinator-l ike properties, so they are grouped on a continuum with coordinators (1089).Halliday and Hassan see conjunction as a cohesive device that relates sentences. cooperative elements they state, are cohesive not in themselves but indirectly, by virture of their particular proposition meanings they are viewed as not primarily devices for reaching out into the antedate text, but express certain meanings which presuppose the presence of other components in the discourse, as similary expound by Bloor and Bloor (1995) .Halliday and Hasan (1976) indicate that junction relations are not tied to both particular sequence in the expression.Nevertheless, amongst the cohesiveness forming devices within text, conjunction is seen as the least directly identifiable relation. Conjunction acts as a semantic cohesive tie within text in four categoriesAdditive, adversative, causal and temporal. Additive conjunction acts to structurally coordinate or link by adding to the presupposed item and are sign aled through and, also, too, furthermore, additionally, and so forth Additive conjunction may also act to negate the presupposed item and is signaled by nor, andnot, either, neither, etc. Adversative conjunctions act to indicate contrary to prevision ( 250) and are signaled by yet, though, only, but, in fact, rather, etc. Causal conjunction expresses result, resolve and purpose and is signaled by so, and so, for, because. Adversative coordination seems always binary, it must consist of two coordinands, so is described as causal and then is described as temporal. (227)Halliday and Hassan acknowledge that conjunction is derived from coordination, they argue that Conjunction is not simply coordination all-embracing so as to operate between sentences, noting that one difference between coordinate and and conjunctive and is that coordinate and can link any reckon of items, whereas conjunctive and link pairs of sentences. They view conjunctions as expressing one or other of a smal l number of very prevalent relations (238).In the same vein Halliday and Matthiessen (1999) in relation to its cohesive enjoyment state that In conjunction, the various logical-semantic relations of elaborateness that construe clause complex structures are deployed instead as a source of cohesiveness.They argue that among other resources which construe clauses and clause complexes into longer stretches of discourse without the formality of further grammatical structure are conjunction and lexical cohesion (530-31).Halliday Matthiessen (1999) in extending the notion of language resources as tools of broadening and reaching out into meaning states thatin principle, any particular type of expansion or projection can be interpreted in either way, either as paratactic or hypotactic but in fact there is some degree of overtone association certain combinations are favored, and others correspondingly disfavored. For example, in English, when one process is construed as a simple res tatement of, or addition to another, the two are likely to have equal status whereas where one is seen as enhancing the other they are commonly unequal a means is secondary to what has been achieved by it, a cause is secondary to its nitty-grittyThe second type of expansion consists in extending one process by construing another one as an addition to it (with and as the limiting case) or as an election to it, a re organisation for it, or as some form of reservation or contrast. Here the grammar typically employs conjunctions, like and, or, but, instead, besides The third type of expansion is one of enhancing the first process by another one mountain up a specific semantic relationship, of which the principal ones are time, cause, condition, subsidization and means. Here again the grammar deploys a range of different conjunctions, which mark either the enhancing clause (when, because, by, though, if and so on) or the one that is being enhanced (e.g. then at that time, then in t hat case, so, thus, yet), (520-1).Scott Drellishak (2004) in his thesis A peck of Coordination Strategies in the Worlds Languages quotes Gleitman (1965) as viewing conjunction as one of many syntactic processes that serve the purpose of indicating contrast or reducing repetition conjoined sentence that does not indicate contrast or veer repetition is described as not serving any purpose. (268)2.7. phrasal CoordinationIf two expressions have different semantic roles it will not be possible to coordinate them. Although it is sometimes give tongue to that the coordinands must belong to the same phrasal category for instance, (tea) NP or (in a Nigerian Restaurant) PP is said to be ungrammatical because it consists of an NP and a PP. However, coordination of different phrasal categories is a lot possible whenboth have the same semantic role.Also in phrasal coordination, the order of conjoined words can be influenced by the tendency for the shorter word to come first and within phra sal coordination, there can be ellipsis of the determiner (Quirk et al610).2.8. Clausal CoordinationWhen two or more clauses are incorporated, certain clause constituents are often ellipted from all but one of the clauses. More often than not , the effect of ellipsis is no more than to suggest a closer continuative between the content of the clauses but sometimes the effect is to indicate that there is a combined process rather than two separate processes.And and or as clause linkers are restricted to sign position. Coordinated clauses with and and or are sequentially fixed in relation to the anterior clause and cannot be transposed without producing ungrammaticality in sentence structure , a clause containing a conjunct may be linked to a preceding clause by one of the coordinating conjunctions (and, or, but) but not all the conjuncts admit each coordinator (Quirk et al552-553).2.9. Parataxis in coordinationParataxis is viewd as the grammatical battle array of equal constituent s, clauses in this case. The parataxis is the earmark of coordination in most cases, the equality of the clauses is unadorned both grammatically and semantically coordination can link constituents at any rank. It creates parallel grammatical structures- structures that are identical in locomote and usually form as well.2.10. Symmetric and asymmetric coordinationCoordinate constructions are said to have symmetrical properties such that conjuncts are paratactically construed, that a conjunct is not subordinated to another conjunct, that conjuncts have the same syntactic and semantic function on the other hand they have asymmetric properties such as ascendence relationship between the first and the second conjuncts. This case is refered to as balanced and unbalanced case of coordination.2.11. Approaches to Coordination Analysis andCoordination in Different GenresIn poetical texts, the study of coordination is quite sparse and limited. For instance Miller (2007) explores biblical Hebraical poetry and the relationship of coordination to verbal gapping is what forms her point of focus. She comes up with the findings that asyndetic coordination is the hallmark of biblical Hebrew poetry and especially first poetry (41-60).Millers star contains 123 lines from the book of Isiah.Svetlana Petrova Michael Solf (2008) explore rhetorical relations and verb placement in the early Germanic languages . it presents a diachronic study about the distinction between coordination and subordination in discourse,it focuses on elder High German and on other early Germanic languages.Petrova and Solf consider other kinds of entropy, mostly from declaratives, in support of the claim that verb placement serves certain discourse functions in early Germanic languages.They come up with the finding that Verb fronting seems to have a clear functional purpose, as it is used to mark episode boundaries in Old High German. The study goes further in identifying some correlations between verb placement and discourse-structuring phenomenon in Old English, Old Saxon, and Old Norse, with similar discourse-structuring functions. A patsy -linguistic progression is adopted in the study as opposed to functional approach in abridgment.Ash Asudeh and Richard Crouch (2002) examine Coordination and Parallelism in Glue Semantics exploring points of convergence and divergence between approach to coordination and similar categorial Grammar (CG) approaches. The research discusses parallelism in connection with the Coordinate Structure Constraint. The authorship presents an account of the semantics of coordination, framed within the theory of Glue Semantics.The goal of a GLUE derivation as explicated in the study is to consume all the lexical premises to produce a single conclusion stating the meaning of the sentence. Further asserting that Semantic ambiguity results when there are alternative derivations from the same set of premises.This study shares common interest with the present one as both relates coordination to instances of cohesion. While this study argues for a glue approach to coordination the present study differs on the ground of functional approach of analysis to coordination in poetic texts.David Bell (2007) examines both the frequency and function of SIA (sentence initial and) and cognate word (sentence initial but) in academic writing and its importance in understanding language in literary texts.While coordinator and is more denounce in academic prose than but, SIA is much less frequent than sibling. Collected data show a marked difference in the use of SIA and cognate word across different genres of academic writing with SIA and SIB being far-off more prevalent in the humanities journals. Furthermore, the study shows that SIA, when compared with other one-dimensional connectives such as moreover, furthermore, in addition, etc., is the most frequently go throughring additive fall guy in academic writing, while SIB is the second most preferred connective after however.With regard to function, the study goes on to argue that both SIA and SIB in academic writing function in terzetto very similar ways (i) to mark off a discourse unit by indicating the last item on a list (ii) to indicate the development of an argument and (iii) to indicate adiscontinuity or cutting with a old discourse unit. This is in line with Halliday and Hassans (1975) view as regard the function of SIA and SIB. The study further asserts that whereas the most common function of SIA is that of indicating the last item on a list, the most common use of SIB is in the development of arguments.It argues that SIA and SIB perform special functions than the alternatives of asyndetic or zero coordination, the use of discourse markers that share their broad semantic function Moreover, furthermore, in addition, and however, respectively, or intrasentential coordination cannot perform.The study proffers that the features allow SIA and SIB to pref ace a wider range of lexico-grammatical units such as interrogatives, stance adverbs and other discourse connectives and to create a tighter cohesive fit. It comments that it is these special features of cohesion which are held to explain the fact of SIA and SIB in academic writing. The focus here is on the use of SIA and SIB in academic discourse, it excluded occurrences of SIA and SIB in academic writing from other modes such as in transcripts of conversations, in quotes from allegory or in poetic texts which is the sole focus of the present research.Halliday and Hasan (1975) on SIA as part of their larger discussion of conjunction as one cohesive device in the larger concept of cohesion describes coordination as an intrasentential structural device while conjunction is seen as a cohesive device that relates sentences. In their examination of conjuncts, SIA is described as augury an additive relationship between sentences while but is described as an adversative. Halliday and Ha san note that one difference between coordinate and, and conjunctive and, is that coordinate and can link any number of items, whereas conjunctive and links pairs of sentences (235).Halliday and Hasan distinguish a further use of SIA, which they suggest comes closest to its structural function as a coordinator, they call it next in a series (236).They suggest that another example would be a series of points all contributing to one general argument. In this function, Halliday and Hasan argue that And retains some of the ex post facto or retrojective effect, i.e. projecting backwards that and has as a coordinator (236).Here, SIA is viewed as signaling not the last item on a list but rather the continuation of an ongoing list of items. The study explicates that however, apart from the cases cited higher up where cohesive And operates similarly to coordinator and, the typical stage setting for SIA is one where there is a total, or almost total shift in the participants from one sente nce to the next, and yet the two sentences are very definitely part of a text (235).Another common context in narrative fiction for this shift is at the boundary of dialogue and narrative.What have been shown here is that SIA and SIB provide special features of cohesion that alternative forms of coordination do not.Schiffrin (1986, 1987, 2006) examines remark and turn-initial and in conversation. She argues that and has two roles in talk An appraisaltional role where it coordinates idea units what she calls a discourse coordinator role, and an interactional or pragmatic or discourse marker role where it continues a speakers action, i.e. marking the speakers upcoming utterance as a continuation of the content and structure of an interaction, and these two functions most often occur simultaneously (1987 128). As a marker of functionally telld idea units, the presence of and signals that the speaker identifies an upcoming unit as structurally coordinated or equivalent to a prior un it. In this way, and can differentiate among other things in narrative, support and position in arguments and explanations, and can also differentiate discourse topics. However, Schiffrin stresses that identifying 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, continuing discourse units, or signaling a shift between discourse units and what determines the discourse function of these signaled discourse units is constructed by the interaction of the linguistic properties of and with the discourse context in which it occurs.Sotirova (2004), using the works of D.H. Lawrence, has argued that SIA, as well as other connectives, are used by Lawrence to signal perspectival shifts in free indirect way (227).Huttar (2002) has examined the use of both discourse-initial and (DIA) and SIA in poetry. Huttar argues that DIA is often used to establish an imagined context already in progress or imagined prior events from which the present utterance is understood to continue. An extremely common form of DIA is that of a question turn to in response to an implied interlocutors statement and often expressing surprise at the previous implied statement. cottier (2003) on the other hand examines the use of SIA and SIB in intelligencepapers over a one hundred year period. She used a 100,000-word head teacher of newspaper articles a mixture of local and national syndicated articles, general news, and feature articles published between 1900 and 1995. Over this period, she noted an increasing occurrence of SIA/B and concurrent descent in temporal connectives. Among other factors, cotter argues that these connectives help to create local and global coherence in news narratives, introduce new speakers and ideas, and link a series of short paragraphs. Cotter sees this increasing use of SIA/B as indicative of a historical shift from more text-centered to more reader-centered prose.Dorgeloh (2004) looked at SIA in a corpus of British English made up of LOB (Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen, 1961) and FLOB (Freiburg Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen, 1991). She indicates a decline in the use of SIA in both academic and newspaper writing. From her analysis she concludes that in written Modern English, SIA, where it does occur, marks functional shifts on a more global level of discourse (1777).This research departs from much of the previous studies, by presenting a functional linguistic analysis which was proffered by Halliday et al. rather researches often focus on the frequency with which certain linguistic features occur, yet another description focuses on the functions of those features. Functional descriptions of language like the one to be adopted here, are more valuable since they offer some understanding of communicative purpose and, thus, explain the use and frequency of linguistic features.