論文

Coordination as a linguistic speed-up mechanism

Thomas Michael Gross

要

旨

本稿では， 言語の並列関係の進化を論 じ る 。 並列関係は文の構造を組み立て る 基本的な原則 と は異な り ， 基本構造の生成に は必要な メ カ ニズム
ではな い と 考え る 。 それ に も かかわ ら ず， 並列関係は言語に現れ， 基本的な原則で生成 さ れ る も の を対象に， 広が り 進化 し て き た。 その た め，
並列関係はそ の基本原則 よ り 若 い と 考 え な ければ な ら な い。 言語は一次元的で， 一方的な も の な ので， それ ら の本質的な特徴に応 じ て， 並列関係が発達 し て き た。 並列関係が ど の よ う に働 く のか と い う と ， ま ず，二つの文が統合 さ れ， それ ら の間に並列語が入 る 。 二つ の異な る 要素は「括弧」 と な り ， 統合 さ れた文 に は同様な要素が あ れば， 括弧の中 に入っ て い る 要素 を 削除 し て も 文が成立す る よ う に な っ て き て い る 。 こ の提案は英語， ド イ ツ語， 日本語 に も 当て は ま る 。
上記の議論に加え， その提案に関連す る 問題や， 並列語の依存関係に お
け る ポテ ン シ ャ ル を論 じ る。

キ ー ワ ー ド ： 並列 ・ 言語進化論

In this paper I shall try to outline a possible scenario for the development of certain — but
not all! — linguistic mechanisms and give possible explanations of why these developments
took place, what influence this had on linguistic structures, and last what kind of influences― 39 ―

愛知大学 言語 と 文化 No. 7

it could supposedly have had on the general development of the language faculty. That
seems to be a rather tall order, but what I can realistically say in this paper is bound to staywithin the programmatic realm. However, I believe it may help the readers to understandmy approach if I clarify my motives.
In Gross (1999), I deliberately added a chapter on language evolution while previously
addressing a supposedly completely different topic, namely theoretical dependency
grammar. The reason for doing so was the revision of Chapter 8 in which I treatedcoordination. After rewriting the chapter on coordination and reviewing Chapter 6 where I
had treated pronominalization, I felt that coordination and pronominalization as linguistic
mechanisms must have a status quite distinct from other linguistic mechanisms. Both thesemechanisms share one important property: utterances that contain pronouns or coordination
are more complex than semantically equivalent utterances that do not contain them.
However, they are usually shorter. These are the reasons why I called pronominalizationand coordination linguistic speed-up mechanisms in Chapter 10 in my book. A linguistic
speed-up mechanism is a device that streamlines linguistic structures to match the needs ofan expanding art of verbal communication.
Pronominalization is very well researched, and the principles for it which are called binding
principles are adhered to throughout the linguistic community. In fact, pronominalization isso well researched that it can be — and often is — used as a test for the syntactic integrityof linguistic structures. However, the same cannot be said about coordination. While there
are many papers on coordination, there is not yet a unifying theory of coordination.
Coordination seems to be a very elusive domain of human language. While language users
do not display any significant problems when actively or passively using coordination,
linguists who tackle coordination do display a significant amount of confusion andfrustration.

This imbalance can be summed up in the following question: why iscoordination so easy to use — but so difficult to describe? This was the problem that
bothered me after writing the first nine chapters of my book on the theoretical foundationsof dependency grammar.
The second angle of approach was the theory of evolution. Not immediately connected to
my research on dependency grammar, I had started reading books on evolution — inparticular the British version of sociobiology, which means Dawkins, Maynard-Smith,
Ridley and others. Bringing studies on evolutionary biology and language together, I started
to research theories on linguistic evolution — which however left me disappointed.

― 40 ―

Coordination as a linguistic speed-up mechanism

Influential authors from the dominant field of constituent theories who follow a
unified-theory approach have mostly nothing revealing to say about linguistic evolution.
That does not mean that they do not have controversial things to say, though. Foremost
Chomsky (1975) seems to believe that language has not evolved in a similar manner to —let’s say — human organs such as the eye. He is quite right, however, to doubt whether itmakes sense to follow such a line of investigation, since we simply do not have old enoughdata on human language. But from this it does not follow that language is not an evolved
faculty. Another version offered by Gould (1993) — who is not a linguist but a biologist —is what has become to be known as the spandrel-theory: language appeared as a secondaryfunction of another function which had properly evolved — presumably developments in
the human brain. Pinker (1994) again believes that language is an instinct, i.e. pure
behavior — but still evolved. These three approaches differ very much in what they assume
as the underlying acquisition mechanism of language. Behavior can be acquired in four
different ways: 1. a behavior is genetically encoded, 2. a behavior is imprinted, 3. abehavior arises from conditioning, and 4. a behavior is learned. For instance, Pinker’s
assumption that language is an instinct clearly falls into the first class. Instincts are
genetically encoded and cannot be reversed. Chomsky’s approach is more difficult tolocate; on the one hand some language mechanisms seem to be genetically encoded, on theother hand they need an imprint experience to get started. It is also reasonable to assume
that Gould would fit into the second class. However, it is quite generally believed that
language could not have arisen as a conditioned reflex or as learned behavior. Other
authors on language evolution more or less speculate how language has first arisen.
Where I think all authors — regardless of viewpoint — are mistaken is to treat language asa holistic system. While it is true that language now seems to be a rather holistic systemthat does not mean that it always was. And it does not mean that every aspect of language
must have the same acquisition mechanism. For instance the above-mentioned mechanismsof pronominalization and coordination are from viewpoints of syntax and communication
quite different from other mechanisms such as for instance predication. First of all, seenfrom the view such as a technician might take, they do not seem to be necessary integral
components of a symbolic system — regardless of the fact that every language does containthem; and languages are evolved symbolic systems with very high expressive power.
However, would languages really lack expressive power if pronouns and coordinators did
not exist? My answer is negative, although I admit that a language without pronouns and― 41 ―

愛知大学 言語 と 文化 No. 7

coordinators — if that is conceivable — would lack communicative power. However,expressive power and communicative power are not the same. This may be best understoodusing an example:(1)

Paul said he will come.

In sentence (1), the person referred to by the pronoun he is usually understood as the same
person as the one that is referred to by Paul. In other words, the pronoun he in sentence (1)is understood as a coreferent to Paul. It functions like a bound variable; in (1) he is boundby Paul. In fact, if we choose to understand the pronoun as referring to Paul, we mentally
reverse the substitution: in (1) he syntactically and semantically substitutes Paul, and we
re-substitute Paul for he — without being aware of this process. This line of thinking offersa specific bonus: if what I said above is true - and I doubt anybody would disagree — wecan formulate a first principle:
Order of development (pronominalization):
There must be a logical order of development for expressions that are substituted
and substituting expressions. The concept of cause and effect demands that thesubstituting expression must come technically later than the expression that is
substituted. That means that is highly unlikely that substituting expressions
evolve before expressions that are substituted.
The small price we pay, however, is that we must explain the almost complete overriding bysubstitute expressions: it must be clarified why pronominal substitution has evolved intosuch a strong principle. What I mean is this: if he in (1) can be understood as Paul, and if
we grant that he functions as a syntactic and semantic variable for Paul in (1), why does itsound strange to say the next sentence?
(2)

Paul said Paul will come.

What I believe makes (2) such a strange utterance is the fact that contemporary speakers ofEnglish already use pronouns. The fact that at a position where we would expect a
pronoun, a referential expressions appears, leads us to believe that the first Paul in (2) may― 42 ―

Coordination as a linguistic speed-up mechanism

not be identical to the second Paul in (2). Therefore, there are two possibilities ofunderstanding (2): the first one — which is probably due to our linguistic autopilot — is tounderstand that there are two different Pauls. The second possibility is that we identify the
first Paul with the second but experience a kind of communicative overload. In the second
reading, the utterance is simply not parsimonious and streamlined enough for our —contemporary — taste.
Returning to the distinction made above between expressive and communicative power, it isfairly safe to say that (1) and (2) have the same expressive power — if we choose to
identify the pronoun with the referential expression in (1), and the first and second Paul in(2). However, in that case, (1) and (2) do not have the same communicative power. For
users of contemporary English, (2) has less communicative power than (1) because it
invites ambiguous readings.
I would like to hold that the fact that it is more confusing for us to understand (2) than (1) iscaused by a secondary development of pronominalization. Once pronominalization is inplace and is adapted to the syntax of a given language, it will exert pressure on the speakers
to make use of it. At this stage, we can assume three basic steps concerning thedevelopment of pronominalization: 1. First a language does not contain pronouns. 2.
Pronouns arise, adapt to and reform the syntax. 3. Pronouns override — wherever possible— any expressions they can substitute, thus gradually making it unstylish to use referential
expressions whenever pronouns could be used.
It is also noteworthy to mention that classical Binding Theory has nothing illuminating to
say about utterances such as (2). Binding Theory can explain why it is possible tounderstand that he refers to Paul in utterance (1), but it does not explain why (2) seems
strange to us.
I shall now turn to coordination. One reason why coordination is less well researched thanpronominalization may be the fact that pronouns are items that substitute other items.
Therefore, the syntax is not greatly compromised, although it must be restructured to fit
binding domains. In the case of coordination, however, we are not looking at simple
substitutions but rather obvious holes in the sentence structures.
sentence:(3)

In the morning I drink coffee, and in the afternoon tea.

― 43 ―

Consider the next

愛知大学 言語 と 文化 No. 7

Clearly, sentence (3) says the same as the following utterance:(4)

In the morning I drink coffee. In the afternoon I drink tea.

However, the words I drink do not appear in the second part of sentence (3). This indicatesthat coordination involves the omission of structurally integral parts of the sentence.
Coordination is therefore a much stronger mechanism of syntactic reorganization thanpronominalization. However, it shares with pronominalization the notion of being asecondary mechanism because it is structurally not really necessary. This is indicated by
the utterances above, namely (3) and (4). In (3), nothing more is said than in (4), but in amuch more parsimonious manner. On the other hand, the syntactic structure in (3) isseverely compromised while (4) is structurally sound and simple.
Using the concepts of expressive and communicative power, we can again make the casethat (3) and (4) have the same expressive power with (3) having more communicative
power than (4), because it is more parsimonious.
Not only the argument of parsimony holds for coordination, too, but the principle of theorder of development is also applicable. Coordination requires at least two items — notnecessarily of the same structural class — to act as conjuncts. It seems evident that thestructural rules for compiling the respective conjuncts must be have evolved before themechanism of coordination evolved to conjoin items. If we rephrase the principle of theorder of development we get:Order of development (coordination):
There must be a logical order of development for expressions that are coordinatedand coordinating expressions. The concept of cause and effect demands that thecoordinating expression must come technically later than the expressions that arecoordinated. That means that is highly unlikely that coordinating expressions
evolve before expressions that are coordinated.
Although, in terms of the order of development, pronominalization and coordination sharesignificant similarities, they differ very much in the way in which the structural principles
are understood and accepted. Pronominalization requires the pronoun to be in a structural
position from which it does not have a specific hierarchical access to its coreferent. This

― 44 ―

Coordination as a linguistic speed-up mechanism

relation is called constituent-command, or short: c-command. Pronouns bound by an
expression understood as its coreferent may not c-command that expression. This allows
only for a limited amount of structures in which a pronoun and a referential expression canbe understood to be co-referential.
The situation is quite different for coordination. Very basic problems still remain disputed.
For instance, should we apply a small conjunct analysis or a big conjunct analysis? The
latter assumes that conjoined expressions form at least sentences, and that what is conjoined
are sentences. The former only considers the immediate conjoined elements as conjuncts.
Thus, in(5)

I like beer and wine.

the small conjunct analysis assumes(6)

I like [beer and wine].

and the big conjuncts analysis assumes(7)[I like beer] and [I like wine].

The small conjunct-analytical structure (6) has the benefit that it does not suppose thedeletion or omission of elements in the second conjunct. However, it will have difficulties
explaining gapping as appeared in sentence (3) where undoubtedly something is missing
from the second part of the sentence.
The big conjunct analysis must explain the deletion or omission of I like in the second
conjunct in sentence (7). However, once that is done, it can be applied to a sentence suchas (3) with the benefit that (7) and (3) are theoretically the same. Furthermore, the big
conjunct analysis can make a semantic point: sentence (5) means I like beer and I like wine.
Is there a way how to decide whether the small conjunct analysis or the big conjunctanalysis is the more appropriate description? — Let us first return to an area less disputed
than this one. Coordination is a speed-up mechanism that enhances structural parsimony ofutterances. There is a malus and a bonus involved: the malus is that structures arecompromised if we look at them from the view point of the linguistic mechanisms that― 45 ―

愛知大学 言語 と 文化 No. 7

serve to compile the conjuncts. The bonus is that the application of coordination makes
utterances quicker to express and quicker to comprehend. In Gross (1999, 189) I used thenext sentence to illustrate the speed-up qualities of coordination:(8)

After the party, Bill and Tom went to see Mary, I went home, and Joan and
Rachel, too.

Sentence (8) contains multiple forms of coordination, some of which are treated very
differently by different researchers. Whatever approach these researchers follow, they will
surely admit that what is expressed in sentence (8) is the same as the list of the following
sentences:(9.1)

After the Party, Bill went to see Mary.

(9.2)

After the Party, Tom went to see Mary.

(9.3)

After the Party, I went home.

(9.4)

After the Party, Joan went home.

(9.5)

After the Party, Rachel went home.

It is evident that (8) is much more parsimonious than (9) — and still expresses the same.
Now, coordination as a linguistic mechanism is a procedure, and what we see in (8) is theresult of applying different forms of coordination to (9.1–5). What happens first is that
(9.1) and (9.2) are coordinated. In a second step, (9.4) and (9.5) are coordinated. The
product resulting from this coordination is then coordinated with (9.3). In the final step the
products {9.1+9.2} and {9.3+{9.4+9.5}} are coordinated. The result is sentence (8). The
first product and the second product are — depending on whether you favor a small
conjunct analysis or a big conjunct analysis approach — different forms of coordination ornot. {9.1+9.2} and {9.4+9.5} can be treated as was done in (6) by the small conjunctanalysis. However, the product {9.3+{9.4+9.5}} becomes a gapping structure.
I have pointed out that according to the principle of the order of development, coordination
cannot evolve before the mechanisms for compiling basic expressions that are to becoordinated have evolved.

That implies that (9) is evolutionary older than (8).

Accordingly, (9.1) and (9.2) must also be older than their possible product by coordination.
Since coordination is a procedural mechanism it means that the coordination procedure― 46 ―

Coordination as a linguistic speed-up mechanism

changes something in the basic set-up of rules that are applied to compile (9.1) and (9.2).
(9.1) is changed insofar as the string and Tom is inserted between Bill and went. (9.2) ischanged insofar as the elements after the party, went, to, see, and Mary are deleted.
However, it is the question whether that is what can be assumed to happen with goodreasons.

Technically, language is a one-dimensional and uni-directional medium.

One-dimensionality means that the only parameter by which the serial order of elements inan utterance can be determined is a temporal sooner or the converse later. Element A
occurs either after element B or before it, but not both at the same time, and it neither does
it occur at the same time as B. Uni-directionality means that the flow of time from sooner
to later is oriented in one direction: from sooner to later. These two properties areconstitutive for language as a medium and pose severe restriction on what is possible andwhat is not.
Language is also processed in the brain, which means that while uttering — encoding amessage — or hearing — decoding a message — something must happen in the brain,
although there certainly are differences between active and passive language use. Whatwould the technically best operation be to fuse (9.1) and (9.2) into the next coordinative
expression?
(10)

After the party, Bill and Tom went to see Mary.

One possible way would be to first coordinate (9.1) and (9.2) and interposing thecoordinator and.
(11)

After the party, Bill went to see Mary and after the party Tom went to see Mary.

This will not yield a parsimonious expression since (11) is even longer than just uttering(9.1) and then (9.2). In the next step (11) must be shortened. Otherwise coordination does
not stand a chance of living up the evolutionary gamble. In (11), the elements between Billand the coordinator, and between the coordinator and Tom also appear in the beginning andthe end of the sentence. If they are deleted, sentence (10) will be the result:(12)

After the party, Bill went to see Mary and after the party Tom went to see Mary.

― 47 ―

愛知大学 言語 と 文化 No. 7

A structure such as (12) using strike-out letters for deleted elements shall be called acollapsed structure. The relevant procedure in this case would be something like this:
Coordination procedure (hypothesis):
1. Combine: Combine two sentences and insert a coordinator.
2. Collapse: Delete any element that is located between non-identical elementsthat bracket the coordinator if it is also present outside this bracket.
Let’s see whether that works in other cases, too. If we want to produce a result such as(13)

I drink tea and coffee.

we first need to combine the sentences(14.1)

I drink tea.

(14.2)

I drink coffee.

and get(15)

I drink tea and I drink coffee.

Non-identical elements are tea and coffee which bracket the coordinator. Inside this bracket
the string I drink is located which is also present outside this bracket, namely in the
beginning of the sentence. Therefore, we get the collapsed structure(16)

I drink tea and I drink coffee.

which is equivalent to sentence (13). In sentence (10), there were elements to be deleted in
front of and after the coordinator. In sentence (13), the deleted element was located after
the coordinator. It is possible to also delete something in front of the coordinator? Yes —if that element is located between the non-identical elements and if it has anotherrepresentation after the second non-identical element. Consider the next sentence:― 48 ―

Coordination as a linguistic speed-up mechanism(17)

Tom and Tim write articles on coordination.

The first step is to combine the next two sentences(18.1)Tom writes articles on coordination.

(18.2)

Tim writes articles on coordination.

in order to form
(19)

Tom writes articles on coordination and Tim writes articles on coordination.

The string writes articles on coordination between Tom and the coordinator can be deleted
because it is also present after Tim. Therefore, we get the collapsed structure(20)

Tom writes articles on coordination and Tim write articles on coordination.

In sentence (17), elements in front of the coordinator had to be deleted. However, we also
had to adjust the inflection of the verb. Since we deleted the first verb, and as a result there
are now two subjects, the verb inflection must change from singular to plural.
Next, can the hypothesis of this coordination procedure made above also account for
gapping? Consider the next sentence:(21)

In the morning I drink tea, and in the afternoon coffee.

First, we have to combine the next sentences(22.1)In the morning I drink tea.

(22.2)In the afternoon I drink coffee.

to form(23)

In the morning I drink tea, and in the afternoon I drink coffee.

― 49 ―

愛知大学 言語 と 文化 No. 7

Now it is necessary to concentrate on which elements are non-identical because
non-identical elements are the reference points for the left and right bracket. In (23), there
are two pairs of non-identical elements, namely in the morning and in the afternoon, andtea and coffee. It seems that we have to choose a pair of non-identical elements, not justany non-identical elements. If we chose tea and in the afternoon then there would be noother element inside the bracket. But which pair should we choose?
Whichever we choose, we must make sure that the pair of non-identical elements bracket an
identical element after the coordinator. Checking back in sentence (21), we realize that wemust choose tea and coffee as the bracket. This leads us to the next collapsed structure
where the bracketing elements are now indicated by bold letters:(24)

In the morning I drink tea, and in the afternoon I drink coffee.

Therefore, our hypothesis seems to be able to generate what are called gapped structures bylinguists. If we look further we notice that it does not matter in what order the pairs of
non-identical elements occur. Consider a variation of (21):(25)

I drink tea in the morning and coffee in the afternoon.

This sentence must result from(26)

I drink tea in the morning, and I drink coffee in the afternoon.

Here, we could suppose that the first or the second pair of non-identical elements as thebracket, and since both choices are possible, the bracket is indicated before the first
non-identical element.
However, we have to retreat one step and look at all possible variations of sentence (21), i.e.
all possible word orders. Since there are two pairs of non-identical elements, there may befour possible word orders. That turns out to be true:(27.1)

I drink tea in the morning and coffee in the afternoon.

(27.2)

I drink tea in the morning and in the afternoon coffee.

(27.3)In the morning I drink tea and coffee in the afternoon.

― 50 ―

Coordination as a linguistic speed-up mechanism(27.4)In the morning I drink tea and in the afternoon coffee.

The sentences (27) must be made up of four elementary sentences, namely:(28.1)

I drink tea in the morning.

(28.2)In the morning I drink tea.

(29.1)

I drink coffee in the afternoon.

(29.2)In the afternoon I drink coffee.

Sentence (21) — now equal to (27.4) — was based on sentences (28.2) and (29.2) — given
above as (22). Sentence (25) is equal to (27.1) and based on (28.1) and (29.1).
The combination of (28.1) and (29.2) produces sentence (27.2):(30)

I drink tea in the morning and in the afternoon I drink coffee.

In (30) the bracketing pair of non-identical elements must be tea and coffee, since the otherpair does not bracket either identical element. Last, the combination of (28.2) and (29.1)
produces sentence (27.3):(31)

In the morning I drink tea and I drink coffee in the afternoon.

In sentence (31) tea and coffee form the bracket because only this pair brackets an elementthat is also present outside of this bracket. Evidently that would not be the case if we chosein the morning and in the afternoon.
Let us summarize what we have found so far: We found that one possible technical way of
coordination to occur was to first combine two sentences and insert a coordinator between
them. Then we found that there can be some elements in the combined product which are
identical and some which are not identical. Further we established that non-identicalelements form brackets that contain the coordinator, and that all identical elements inside
this bracket could be deleted if a corresponding identical element was located outside thisbracket. The result of this procedure — until now — always resulted in utterances that areconsidered grammatical in contemporary English.

― 51 ―

愛知大学 言語 と 文化 No. 7

But we also found that there are some restrictions pertaining to the deletion of identicalelements: sometimes elements are deleted which are located in front of the coordinator, andsometimes elements are deleted which are located after the coordinator. In so-called
gapping structures, the identical element which could be deleted was always located after
the coordinator. The question now is: is this always so?
The answer is Yes because gapping is defined in that way. By this definition, however,there are languages where gapping does not occur because the verb in the second conjunctcannot be deleted for structural reasons. Japanese is a case in point.
However, the above-said only pertains to identical elements if they are verbs. Other
elements can be deleted in coordinated structures even if they are located in front of thelocation where a coordinator can appear. At least, this is true for German. Consider the
next sentence:(32)

Peter mag Tee mit und Paul Kaffee ohne Milch.
“Peter likes Tee with (milk) and Paul coffee without milk.”

Sentence (32) is clearly a gapped structure because there is no verb after the coordinator —thus it must be identical to the one in front of the coordinator. However, the noun Milch is
missing at a location in front of the coordinator. Sentence (32) should derive from the next
combination:(33)

Peter mag Tee mit Milch und Paul mag Kaffee ohne Milch.

Since gapping is restricted to structures with deleted identical elements after the location
where a coordinator can appear, the deletion of Milch in front of the coordinator is not an
instance of gapping. Let us concentrate on the noun: it is also possible to delete theidentical element after the coordinator in (32) if the one in front of the coordinator is notdeleted:(34)

Peter mag Tee mit Milch und Paul Kaffee ohne.

Sentence (34) is an instance of gapping and should derive from a structure similar to (33)but with the difference that the Milch and Milch are reversed. It is also clear that the right― 52 ―

Coordination as a linguistic speed-up mechanism

bracket must now include Milch but it should not include Milch. In such a case, however,the problem arises where we should locate the left bracket. It should include mit but not
Milch. This, however, is absolutely impossible. Since the deletion of Milch after thecoordinator cannot be accounted for by our collapse mechanism, it must be due to anothermechanism. It is, however, possible to offer a principle that covers these instances. Let us
first assume that sentence (34) derives from(35)

Peter mag Tee mit Milch und Paul mag Kaffee ohne Milch.

We then find that the following principle may hold:
Bracket deletion blocking:If one of two identical elements is located inside the bracket and in front of thelocation where a coordinator can appear or if it forms the bracket, but is notdeleted during the collapse then the element outside the bracket may be deleted if
it is located after the location where a coordinator can appear.
This principle also holds for the subordinate clause versions of (32) and (34):(36)…dass Peter Tee mit und Paul Kaffee ohne Milch mag…

Expression (36) derives from(37)

…dass Peter Tee mit Milch mag und dass Paul Kaffee ohne Milch mag…

where Milch located in front of the coordinator is deleted. The noun Milch is not bracketed.
Sentence (36) is a not a gapped structure because the verb in the second conjunct is notdeleted. The subordinate clause equivalent of (34) is(38)…dass Peter Tee mit Milch und Paul Kaffee ohne mag…

Expression (38) derives from― 53 ―

愛知大学 言語 と 文化 No. 7(39)…dass Peter Tee mit Milch mag und dass Paul Kaffee ohne Milch mag…

where Milch located after the coordinator and is deleted. Here, both identical nouns arebracketed, and thus bracket deletion blocking applies.
The possible assumption that a principle could restrict these cases to prepositional phrases
dependent on a noun as was the case in (32), (34), (36) and (38) is not valid. Consider the
next examples:(40)

Peter reiste gestern ohne, und Paul heute morgen mit Gepäck.
“Peter traveled without (luggage) yesterday and Paul with luggage today.”Sentence (40) is a gapped structure with one noun, namely Gepäck deleted in front of thecoordinator. The derivation structure should be(41)Peter reiste gestern ohne Gepäck, und Paul reiste heute morgen mit Gepäck.

The next sentence, however, is full gapping since it must also invoke the principle ofbracket deletion blocking:(42)

Peter reiste gestern ohne Gepäck, und Paul heute morgen mit.
“Peter traveled without luggage yesterday and Paul with (luggage) today.”In sentence (42) the second noun Gepäck is deleted because the first one has not been
deleted.
There is a further indication that bracket deletion blocking occurs in German. The next two
sentences(43.1)

Kaffee und Tee mag ich.

(43.2)

Kaffee mag ich und Tee.

can both be derived from the same combined structure:(44)

Kaffee mag ich und Tee mag ich.

― 54 ―

Coordination as a linguistic speed-up mechanism

However, to derive sentence (43.1), the bracket must be collapsed in (44).
(45)

Kaffee mag ich und Tee mag ich.

But in order to derive sentence (43.2), the bracket may not be collapsed but the bracket
deletion blocking principle must be invoked:(46)

Kaffee mag ich und Tee mag ich.

Sentence (43.2) is thus a case of gapping. In case two or more elements are deleted outside
the right bracket, the adverb auch (eng. too) is often used:(47)

Kaffee mag ich und Tee auch.

I suspect, however, that the mechanism that is described by the principle of bracket deletion
blocking is secondary even to coordination, i.e. it is evolutionary younger than coordination.
Let us quickly address another problem that has already appeared but not been commented
on. In the sentences (40) and (42) we found that there could be more than just two pairs of
non-identical elements. However, there seem to be limits how many non-identical elements
can appear in front of and after a verbal gap. Still, this seems to be largely parameterizedby typological properties of a language.
Let us turn now to another problem. Leaving the realm of what linguists call gapping we
now can ask whether it is also possible to generate multiple coordination with our
hypothesis of an operational procedure. The answer is positive, although we have to apply
the procedure recursively. Consider the next sentence:(48)

Peter and Paul read Goethe and Schiller in German.

In sentence (48) we have two double coordinated structures: Peter and Paul and Goethe
and Schiller. Sentence (48) is equivalent to the following list of sentences:(49.1)

Peter read Goethe in German.

(49.2)

Peter read Schiller in German.

― 55 ―

愛知大学 言語 と 文化 No. 7(49.3)Paul read Goethe in German.

(49.4)Paul read Schiller in German.

We first combine (49.1) and (49.2), then (49.3) and (49.4), and last the respective products.
The product of the first combination and its collapse is(50)

Peter read Goethe in German and Peter read Schiller in German.

The product of the second combination and its collapse is(51)

Paul read Goethe in German and Paul read Schiller in German.

The product of the combination and collapse of (50) and (51) is(52)

Peter read Goethe and Schiller in German and Paul read Goethe and Schiller inGerman.

After this rather long detour we can return the question which approach is the better one:the small conjunct analysis or the big conjunct analysis. I believe I have very thoroughly
illustrated how to emulate coordination by relying on the idea of combining two (or more)sentences and deleting all identical elements that appear in a specified yet very general
position. This approach has thus basically been a big conjunct analysis, although there is
still room for dispute how the actual syntactic structure of products of the coordination
procedure is to be determined. Although I hope to remain open to other ideas andproposals, I cannot imagine how a coordination procedure could be developed on the basisof a small conjunct analysis. As long as a small conjunct analysis — and for that matter any
other analysis, too — fails to explain how coordination as a mechanism evolutionary
younger than more basic mechanisms for generating a sentence structure, uses the building
blocks already available, it fails to explain coordination altogether.
However, there are also grave arguments against a big conjunct analysis. It is claimed thatthe following sentences cannot be derived by a procedure that is based on combining two
sentences:― 56 ―

Coordination as a linguistic speed-up mechanism(53.1)

Two and three is five.

(53.2)

John didn’t read the book or Mary the paper.

(53.3)Tom and Bill met.

It is evident neither sentence above can be derived from the following combinations:(54.1) * Two is five and three is five.
(54.2) * John didn’t read the book or Mary didn’t read the paper.
(54.3) * Tom met and Bill met.
Sentence (53.1) is an arithmetic term, sentence (53.2) a complex logical term, and sentence(53.3) a sentence with a symmetric predicate. Since the problem posed by sentence (53.1)
is easiest to tackle, I start with that. The word and in (53.1) is understood as a coordinatorby those who use sentences like (53.1) as a counter-argument to a big conjunct analysis.
However, in (53.1) and can replaced by the Latin word plus without changing the meaning.
But plus cannot replace and in sentences such as for instance (52). Thus, plus is not acoordinator. If plus can replace and then and does not function as a coordinator in theexpression where it is replaced by plus. A further indication that (53.1) is not a valid
argument against the big conjunct analysis is the fact that there are languages werearithmetic addition is not rendered as pseudo-coordination. In Japanese, sentence (53.1)
becomes(55)

２ たす ３ は ５。
ni tas.u san=wa go.
2 add +present_tense 3 =exclusive_focus; 5

Since we already employ an evolutionary view of coordination we may point out that
addition as pseudo-coordination must have evolved after coordination was established.
Sentence (53.2) poses a logical problem: the coordinator and cannot appear inside the scopeof a negator in a gapped structure. It must be or. However, in the combined structure(54.2), the coordinator is not inside the scope of the negator and thus should be and not or.
Disregarding for the moment, that logics certainly has appeared as after the coordination
mechanism, it is not impossible to integrate demands of logics into a theory of coordination,― 57 ―

愛知大学 言語 と 文化 No. 7

since we deal not only with a logical matter but also with a syntactic issue. In case ofcollapse hierarchy relations change significantly, and if the coordinator and is moved into
the scope of a negator due to coordination collapse why should it not be possible to assume
that it changes to or? Even a small conjunct analysis must concede that (53.2) means(56)

John didn’t read the book and Mary didn’t read the paper.

The burden is then on the small conjunct analysis to explain why (53.2) and (56) mean thesame.
Sentence (53.3) contains a symmetric predicate since this sentence means:(57)

Tom met Bill and Bill met Tom.

Thus, (57) and not (54.3) is the combined structure needed to derive (53.3). The collapsed
structure must invoke — exactly like the cases of gapping I have shown above — not only
the coordination procedure but also the bracket deletion blocking:(58)

Tom met Bill and Bill met Tom.

The elements met and Bill are deleted because they appear inside the bracket formed by the
first Tom and the second Bill. The word Tom after the coordinator is deleted according tobracket deletion blocking: the first Tom cannot be deleted for structural reasons; chiefly
because there would be no element in front of the coordinator. Thus, the second Tom isdeleted. If we look at the definition of bracket deletion blocking we find that the second
element may be deleted. However, the first element does not have to be deleted either. In(58), however, the first element must not be deleted, while the second must be deleted. I
will rephrase the relevant principle later.
I want to address a further problem. It has been pointed out that in coordinated expressions
it matters quite a lot where elements are positioned in order to refer to both conjuncts.
Remember that we established the concept of a bracket and that elements inside thisbracket could be deleted if they have an identical counterpart located outside the bracket.
Therefore what remains after the operative procedure has been applied are all elements
outside of the bracket, and those elements inside the bracket that could not be deleted. The― 58 ―

Coordination as a linguistic speed-up mechanism

problem addressed here only involves noun phrases — and in particular attributive
adjectives — and must not be expanded to other phrase types:(59)

old women and men from Canada

Sentence (59) can be understood in the way that old and from Canada refer both to womenand men. If this should be so, then the collapsed structure should be(60)

old women from Canada and old men from Canada

In the next sentence, however, old can seemingly not refer to men:(61)

old women from Canada and men from Mexico

If this should be true, then there are two possible collapsed structures of which (61) cannot
have derived:(62.1) * old women from Canada and old men from Mexico(62.2) * old women from Canada and old men from Mexico
Note that we have two possible collapsed structures in (62), because it is not quite clear
which elements form the bracket. The proper collapsed structure must rather be(63)

old women from Canada and men from Mexico

In (63) there is no bracket, viz. the bracket only contains the coordinator. In this case I
think we can safely dispense with the bracket indicators altogether. Now consider the next
sentence:(64)

young women with red hair and old men with brown hair from Europe

In (64), the element from Europe can be understood to refer to both women and men. Thus
the collapsed structure should look like― 59 ―

愛知大学 言語 と 文化 No. 7(65)

young women with red hair from Canada and old men with brown hair from
CanadaObviously what seems to be the problem here is that there is a restriction for how far
elements can refer to elements on the other side of the coordinator. The collapsed structure(60) of sentence (59) illustrates that the undeleted elements outside the bracket can refer toelements on the other side of the coordinator: old can refer to men, and from Canada canrefer to women. The sentences (61) and (64) illustrate an anti-symmetry for possible
coreference of undeleted elements in front of the coordinator and undeleted elements after
the coordinator. Sentence (61) shows that an element located outside the bracket and in
front of the coordinator cannot refer to an element after the coordinator: old cannot refer tomen in (61). Sentence (64) shows that an element located outside the bracket and after thecoordinator can refer to an element in front of the coordinator: from Canada can refer towomen.
These finding have a very important implication for the hypothesis made above: the second
part of the coordination procedure stated that every element could be deleted if it was
located inside the bracket and if there was an identical element outside the bracket. It
seems that this principle is too liberal because it would cause old in front of men to bedeleted. However, this reading is impossible in sentence (61).
When I introduced the term collapsed structure I did so with a certain idea in mind. Whatis actually happening when coordination collapses two sentences is the collapse of thesyntactic structure of the sentence. We find indirect proof for this assumption in the factthat linguists have grave difficulties describing the syntax of coordinated structures. It
seems that coordination can wield a rather free hand when collapsing sentences, however,there are evident restrictions when it comes to noun phrases. The chief reason for thisdifficulty must be that the structure of noun phrases has already become ossified to a degree
that it was not malleable enough anymore to allow for coordination collapse to the degree
sentences are able to allow. Sentences have to be — by nature — very malleable, nounphrases are not as soft. Inside a noun phrase adjectives refer to the noun inside this phrase.
If coordination collapse yields a sequence of two nouns connected by a coordinator, theattributive relation is still possible, because the coordinated elements are simple nouns.
However, if the first conjunct is a noun phrase, then coordination collapse would result in asituation where the adjective had to form an attributive relation with two noun phrase― 60 ―

Coordination as a linguistic speed-up mechanism

conjuncts. And that seems to be too tall an order for an adjective to accomplish.
If our hypothesis can be adjusted to account for this phenomenon, then it should be valid for
all types of coordination. I propose to leave the Coordination Procedure as it is and add two
constraints. Below the formulation of the Coordination Procedure is repeated:
Coordination Procedure:
1. Combine: Combine two sentences and insert a coordinator.
2. Collapse: Delete any element that is located between non-identical elementsthat bracket the location where a coordinator can appear if it is also present
outside this bracket.
Further, two constraints are needed. The first one handles the problem of incompletely
collapsed noun phrases:
NP-Constraint:
Do not delete an identical element E in front of a noun after the coordinator if
there are undeleted elements between the coordinator and the noun immediately
after E.
Next a constraint is needed that addresses instances where an element inside the bracket
stays undeleted although it has an identical element outside the bracket. We covered that as
the bracket deletion block.
Bracket Deletion Constraint:
If one of two identical elements is located inside the bracket and in front of thelocation where a coordinator can appear or if it forms the bracket, but is notdeleted during the collapse then the element outside the bracket may be deleted if
it is located after the location where a coordinator can appear. If it cannot bedeleted then the second element must be deleted.
The above constraint is a nice example of how language uses its properties of
one-dimensionality and uni-directionality. If the first element is not deleted, even though it
is in a position where it could be deleted, then the second element is deleted. This― 61 ―

愛知大学 言語 と 文化 No. 7

constraint is also in part responsible for some cases of gapping — in particular examples
such as sentence (43.2) — where the — first — verb in the bracket is not deleted but rather
the second one outside the bracket. The reason for this deletion block is syntax. And here
we approach the second most discussed problem concerning coordination.
There are two major models in syntax studies. The constituency model primarily assumes
that words form phrases, and that syntactic rules and relations act on phrases. The
dependency model assumes words as basic entities, and thus syntactic rules and relations
act only on words. Which model is better suited to syntactic analysis is a discussion I do
not want to start here. However, the important property that both models share is that theyboth assume hierarchies between the assumed syntactic elements. Some elements have ahigher syntactic status and others a lower status. The most pertinent question concerning
coordination is what kind of hierarchy status coordinators must have. In the majority ofcontributions we find two approaches: 1. the coordinator is assigned a hierarchy potentialthat is equivalent to its logical function. For instance, the coordinator and coordinates twoelements and is thus placed above both elements. 2. The coordinator is not assigned ahierarchy potential but merely placed between the conjuncts. The problem is whichassumption fits the data.
Consider the next sentence:(66)

Peter likes football, and he often goes to watch games.

In sentence (66) we have coordination as well as pronominalization. If Peter would occur
instead of he it would have been deleted, thus forming a perfectly acceptable sentence.
However, it has not been deleted in (66), and (66) is also a perfectly acceptable sentence.
Binding Theory states that referential expressions cannot be ranked on the same level orlower than pronouns if a co-referential reading should be acceptable. Thus, Peter must be
ranked higher than he, if we want to understand both expressions as referring to the same
person. On the other hand, if we mutually substitute Peter and he as in the next sentence(67)

He likes football, and Peter often goes to watch games.

Peter and he cannot be understood as the same person. However, both Peter and he havethe same syntactic function in their sentences: they are subject of their respective verbs.

― 62 ―

Coordination as a linguistic speed-up mechanism

This indicates that neither the assumption of assigning coordinators a hierarchy potential
over both conjuncts, nor the assumption of just placing the coordinator between the
conjuncts can be correct because it would violate the binding principle explained above.
The sentence after the coordinator must be ranked lower than the sentence in front of thecoordinator. The only device that can make that happen is the coordinator. Thus, thecoordinator and must be ranked lower than the first conjunct but ranked higher than thesecond conjuncts. First consider two dependency trees for (66) and (67) where thecoordinator is ranked higher than both conjuncts:
and

likes

Peter

goes

football

he

often

to watch games

Picture 1: Tree of (66) with higher ranked coordinator

This tree could be correct, since the pronoun cannot c-command Peter. However, neither
would same tree for sentence (67) allow such a relationship.
and

likes

He

goes

football

Peter

often

to watch games

Picture 2: Tree of (67) with higher ranked coordinator

According to picture 2, the pronoun should not be able to c-command Peter. Hence, thepronoun and Peter should be able to be read as co-referential. Since this is not possible, theassumption of a coordinator ranked higher than both conjuncts must be judged incorrect.
Consider now a tree where the coordinator is not assigned a hierarchy potential:― 63 ―

愛知大学 言語 と 文化 No. 7

likes

Peter

and

football

goes

he

often

to watch games

Picture 3: Tree of (66) with inserted coordinator

According to the structure depicted in picture 3, the pronoun now c-commands Peter andthus disallows a reading that identifies the pronoun with Peter. Since this is not possible
the assumption that coordinators have no hierarchy potential at all, must be judged incorrect
as well. Now consider two trees where the coordinator is placed hierarchically between the
conjuncts:
likes

Peter

football

and

goes

he

often

to watch games

Picture 4: Tree of sentence (66) with hierarchical coordinator

In picture 4, the pronoun cannot c-command Peter. Thus a co-referential reading of the
pronoun and Peter is acceptable. The inversion of both expressions yields the next tree:
likes

He

football

and

goes

he

often

to watch games

Picture 5: Tree of sentence (67) with hierarchical coordinator― 64 ―

Coordination as a linguistic speed-up mechanism

In picture 5, the pronoun c-commands Peter and thus disallows a co-referential reading.
Picture 4 and 5 plus well established claims made by Binding Theory lead us to accept thatcoordinators have a specific hierarchy potential. The only linguist — besides my humble
self — who has ever proposed such an anti-symmetrically directed hierarchy potential for
coordinators in a dependency framework is Mel’ψ
cuk (1988).
Returning to the discussion of the Bracket Deletion Constraint, we realize that if finite
verbs, i.e. elements that for all practical purposes rank highest in the sentence structure,appear inside the bracket they may not be deleted because this deletion would corrupt thehierarchy potential of the coordinator.
However, the direction of the hierarchy potential of coordinators is of course typologicallyparameterized. While in English and German coordinators are ranked lower than the headof the first conjunct, but higher than the head of the second adjunct, it is just the opposite inJapanese, although Japanese does not know coordinators as a word-class. The next
sentence displays an instance of coordination in Japanese where a coordinator cannot occur:(68)

僕は コ ー ヒ ー を ， 彼は お茶 を 飲む。
boku=wa koohii=o, kare=wa o.tya=o nom.u.
I =exclusive_focus coffee =accusative he =e_f honorific- tea =acc drink+present_tense
I drink coffee, he tea.

In (68), there is no coordinator, and there cannot be one. The collapsed structure of (68) is:(69)

boku=wa koohii=o nom.u kare=wa o.tya=o nom.u.

A dependency tree of (68) looks like picture 6:
nom.u

boku=wakoohii=okare=wao.tya=oPicture 6: Dependency tree of (68)

The next sentence contains a coordinator, however, as a suffix:― 65 ―

愛知大学 言語 と 文化 No. 7(70)

私は兄が一人 と 弟が二人 い る 。
watasi=wa ani=ga hitori=to otooto=ga hutari i.ru.
I =e_f elder_brother =nominative one_person =coordinator younger_brother=nom two_persons be +present_tense
I have one elder and two younger brothers.

Sentence (70) derives from the next collapsed structure:(71)

watasi=wa ani=ga hitori i.ru COORD watasi=wa otooto=ga hutari i.ru.

In (71), we have to assume an abstract coordinator. If the verb i.ru is deleted during thecollapse, the next word left of i.ru is a noun. Coordination between nouns is expressed —among others — by the particle =to which is agglutinated to hitori. This particles — andothers with coordinative function — instantiates a hierarchy relation opposite to German
and English coordinators. However, since =to is not a word, it cannot have a hierarchy
potential itself; it rather transfers a hierarchy rank to the noun to which it is assigned. Thus,
hitori ranks lower than its counterpart hutari. In a two-dimensional dependency trees thishierarchy causes a discontinuity:i.ru

watasi=wa

ani=gaotooto=ga

hutarihitori=to
Picture 7: Dependency tree of (70)

I shall now summarize what I think coordination as a speed-up mechanism is, what it does,
and how it influences other language faculties.
The first function of a coordinator-like expression was probably to signal that the speaker
wished to continue with his utterance. Thus two sentences were combined. In the
beginning, they probably stayed combined, but did not collapse. In a second phase, collapse
occurred if the combined sentences each included an identical element. Non-identical― 66 ―

Coordination as a linguistic speed-up mechanism

elements came to serve as borders for the identical expressions within to be deleted. This
produced the first coordinated structures in the way we think of coordination. Noun phrases
were probably already so far evolved and ossified that they needed to be fully collapsed inorder for an adjective outside the left bracket to refer to a noun after the location where acoordinator can appear. In a third phase constraints for the deletion of bracket blocking
appeared. An identical element inside the bracket could stay undeleted if its correspondent
outside the right bracket was deleted.
Since the mechanisms for basic sentence structuring had already — though yet not fully —
evolved coordination collapse had to adapt to these structuring principles. That means that
if a language has lexical coordinators, they must have anti-symmetrically directed hierarchy
potentials. In SOV-languages the head of the first conjunct is ranked lower than thecoordinator, and the coordinator itself is ranked lower than the head of the second conjunct.
In other languages the hierarchy potentials are the opposite. In languages that have no orvery rarely lexical coordinators, affix coordinators emulate the same hierarchy directions alexical coordinator would have in a language with the same typological properties.
Coordination collapse evolved because it could effectually make communication more rapid
than had been the case before. Once rapidity become a feature that could be enhanced by
the use of mechanisms designed to do just that, it is quite imaginable that this contributed totheir rapid procreation. Since coordination collapse involved the collapse of sentence
structuring that is used for generating basic sentence structures, it also quite imaginable that
this contributed in no mean degree to the development of human brain faculties such as for
instance expansion of short-term memory and enhancement of planning faculties located in
the left frontal lobe from which the language centers are not very distant.
In what particular way this has happened is hard to prove, but there can be no doubt thatcoordination is a linguistic mechanism uniquely distinct from any other mechanism.

― 67 ―

愛知大学 言語 と 文化 No. 7

Literature:
Chomsky, Noam (1975):
Gould, Steven J. (1993):

Reflections on Language. Pantheon: New York.
Fulfilling the spandrels of world and mind.
In:
Understanding Scientific Prose. University of Wisconsin
Press: Madison, WI. 310–336.
Gross, Thomas Michael (1999): Theoretical Foundations of Dependency Syntax. iudicium
Verlag: München.
Mel’ψcuk, Igor (1988):
Dependency Syntax: Theory and Practice. State Universityof New York Press: New York.
Pinker, Steven (1994):
The Language Instinct. The Penguin Press: London.

― 68 ―