Dave,
The article at the link deals with formal logic, in which conjunction has a very precise meaning. It doesn't really have a lot to do with natural language. Formal logic deals with truth value and the relationships among propositions--plus a lot more, and it's a very useful body of knowledge for careful representation of certain semantic distinctions.
I may have used the word "disjunctive". I don't think I called them adjunctive.
Herb
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of David Brown
Sent: Sat 6/2/2007 4:45 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Coordinating Conjunctions
This is a very informative discussion. I've never been bothered by the use of "for" and "so" as coordinators, but I'm a bit uncomfortable with "but" and "yet," which seem to contradict the first clause. I think Herb referred to them long ago as "adjunctive conjunctions." I did a Google search for a further understanding of that term, and I found this: http://www.columbia.edu/~av72/papers/LNC_2004.pdf .Can anyone put it into plain language for me? David BrownESL teacherThe English CornerLong Beach, CAUSA--- On Sat 06/02, Stahlke, Herbert F.W. < [log in to unmask] > wrote:From: Stahlke, Herbert F.W. [mailto: [log in to unmask]]To: [log in to unmask]: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 10:24:58 -0400Subject: Re: Coordinating ConjunctionsCraig,You raise the necessary distinction grammatical and functional coordination and subordination, that is, between parataxis/hypotaxis, on the one hand, and, for want of a better pair of terms, foregrounding/backgrounding. Parataxis and hypotaxis
refer specifically to grammatically marked coordination or subordination, usually by the use of coordinating or subordinating conjunctions. A major function of subordination is to background material, although not all subordinate clauses do this. Subordinate clauses present typically, unless specific conditions to the contrary are present, content that is presupposed to be true. Main clauses, on the other hand, are asserted. In a sentence like Samantha got a good interest rate after she checked with her credit union.it's easy to deny that she got a good interest rate; just say, "No, she didn't." But to deny that she checked with the credit union, you'd have to say more, like, "But she didn't check with her credit union."In a sentence likeSammy at five green apples, and he got a belly ache.we find the same relationship. If you say "No, he didn't" you're denying that he got a belly ache, not that he ate the apples. You have to specifically mention them to deny that
presupposition. Functionally, that makes the first clause more like a subordinate, even though it's marked grammatically as a coordinate. Yet, so, and for clauses can be either presupposed or asserted. In that sense they act more like coordinate clauses, although like some and and but clauses they can have either pragmatic function.With adverbial and adjectival subordinate clauses, we're much more likely to presupposition. With nominal subordinate clauses the function depends on the head word. With think, the that-clause isn't necessarily true:I think it rained earlier this morning. (But the sprinklers could have come on.)With regret, the clause is presupposed to be true. I can't say I regret that I missed the meeting.if I didn't miss the meeting.The point is that meaning, in the sense of pragmatic function, varies to some extent independently of overt subordination or coordination.Herb-----Original Message-----From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of
Craig HancockSent: Sat 6/2/2007 8:12 AMTo: [log in to unmask]: Re: Coordinating Conjunctions> This has been a delightful conversation to pick up on some dozenmessages in.There are two parts to Peter's original question about and, or, for,nor, so, yet, and but. Are they conjunctions? John's movability test isa good one, and it's one that they will pass. Are they coordinate? Inother words, do they leave both sides equal? I would say yes for and,but, or, nor, but not for so, yet, and--especially--for. So when wecall them coordinating conjunctions, I like to tell my students thatthey are RECOGNIZED as coordinating conjunctions within a standardgrammar, which means (if we follow the best rule books) we can start asentence with any of them without making it a fragment. So these aredifferent questions, one about meaning, the other about the analysis (alittle faulty) behind traditional punctuation conventions. You can alsoask questions about their role in discourse
flow.With my own students, a very high percentage of run-on sentences fitthe model of adverb opening second clause. So I think it is importantto talk about how adverbs are movable (nice test) but also that they donot CONJUNCT. Subordinating conjunctions (not the adverbs, like howeveror therefore or now or then)have a conjunctive function, but alsosubordinate one clause to the other. (The subordinated clause has agrammatical role in the main clause, more often than not adverbial.)You can make a case that "He wanted to please her, for she was the girlof his dreams" is very close to "He wanted to please her because shewas the girl of his dreams." I would like to call both subordinate, buttraditional grammar (and the punctuation conventions that come with it)recognize the "for" as coordinating. "For she was the girl of hisdreams" would not be a fragment in traditional grammar, but "becauseshe was the girl of his dreams" would.I do have a roughed out article on this somewhere, one
that never gotpast the extensive note stage. It's an intereresting area because ithighlights some of the different kinds of questions we can ask ofwritten language choice. What does it contribute to meaning? How doesit influence the flow of discourse? What does traditional grammar sayabout it?Craig> In a message dated 6/1/07 3:01:05 PM, [log in to unmask] writes:>>>> Perhaps ?oclause; however, clause? is the standard convention, but we>> also>> allow ?oS. However, S? if the contrast is stronger. >>>> I've always taught that "clause; conjunctive adverb, clause" is the> standard> convention, but Ed Schuster, in his wonderful book Breaking the Rules,> points> out that, in fact, "clause. Conjunctive adverb, clause" is much more> common.>>> I wonder why I have been insisting on the semicolon version for all these> years . . . and why almost all the handbooks do too. Schuster recognizes> Lynn> Troyka's as
the only one he is aware of that, at least, recognizes the> equal> correctness of the version with a period before the conjunctive adverb.>> Peter Adams>>>> **************************************> See what's free at http://www.aol.com.>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface> at:> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html> and select "Join or leave the list">> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.htmland select "Join or leave the list"Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.htmland select "Join or leave the list"Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
_______________________________________________
No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
Make My Way your home on the Web - http://www.myway.com
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|
