Slavistica Vilnensis ISSN 2351-6895 eISSN 2424-6115
2024, vol. 69(1), pp. 67–86 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15388/SlavViln.2024.69(1).5

Criteria for Coordination in Slovenian Multiclause Sentences

Dejan Gabrovšek
ZRC SAZU, Fran Ramovš Institute of the Slovenian Language, Ljubljana, Slovenia
E-mail: dejan.gabrovsek@zrc-sazu.si
ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4995-1814
https://ror.org/04jfcs144

----------------------------------

This article has been produced as part of the P6-0038 programme, The Slovenian Language in Synchronic and Diachronic Development, financed by the Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency.

----------------------------------

Abstract. The article presents and explains the criteria for coordination in the Slovenian compound sentence. The most important criteria are the same status of both clauses, i.e. symmetry, interchangeability in the order of clauses, the fact that the noninitial clause expresses new information, the possibility of adding clauses, the temporal iconicity principle, the fact that backwards anaphora is not possible, and the coordinate structure constraint. Slovenian examples from the corpus are used to demonstrate almost every criterion.

At the end of the article, it is pointed out that not all the criteria can be applied to all the constructions considered coordinate, which is to be expected given the complex nature of a language, so it is better to say that there are different degrees of dependency rather than just subordination (complex sentences) and coordination (compound sentences): the more criteria for coordination a particular construction fulfils, the more coordinate it is, and the fewer criteria for coordination a particular construction fulfils, the less coordinate it is and thus closer to the subordinate pole. Some of the criteria for coordination shown here also apply to structures that are normally considered subordinate. Conversely, some of the criteria for subordination also apply to certain structures that are normally considered coordinate. There is no clear line between coordination and subordination, but rather a continuous gradient from the most coordinate to the most subordinate.

Key words: syntax, Slovenian language, clause, sentence, degree of dependence, conjunction

Merila za prirednost v slovenski večstavčni povedi

Povzetek. V članku so predstavljena in pojasnjena merila za prirednost v slovenski zloženi povedi. Najpomembnejša merila so enak status obeh stavkov, tj. simetričnost, zamenljivost vrstnega reda stavkov, nova informacija neprvega stavka, možnost dodajanja stavkov, ikoničnost stavkov, odsotnost katafore in dejstvo, da noben element priredja ne more nastopati v drugem stavku. Za prikaz meril so uporabljeni slovenski korpusni primeri.

Na koncu članka je poudarjeno, da vsa merila za prirednost ne veljajo za vsa priredja, kar je glede na kompleksno naravo jezika pričakovano, zato je bolje reči, da obstajajo različne stopnje odvisnosti in ne le podredje in priredje: več meril za prirednost določena konstrukcija izpolnjuje, bolj je priredna, in manj meril za prirednost določena konstrukcija izpolnjuje, manj je priredna in je zato bližje podrednemu polu. Nekatera merila za prirednost veljajo tudi za konstrukcije, ki jih sicer obravnavamo kot podredne. In obratno, nekatera merila za podrednost veljajo tudi za nekatere konstrukcije, ki so sicer priredne. Med priredjem in podredjem ni jasne meje, temveč gre za neprekinjen niz razmerij od najbolj prirednih do najbolj podrednih.

Ključne besede: skladnja, slovenski jezik, stavek, poved, stopnja odvisnosti, veznik

Slovėnų kalbos sudėtinių sujungiamųjų sakinių kriterijai

Santrauka. Straipsnyje apibrėžiami slovėnų kalbos sudėtinių sujungiamųjų sakinių kriterijai. Svarbiausi kriterijai: sakinių simetrija, sakinių eigos pakeičiamumas, naujos informacijos pateikimas nepradiniame sakinyje, galimybė papildyti sakinius, ikoniškumas, kataforos nebuvimas ir tai, kad nė vienas vienos iš sudėtinio sujungiamojo sakinio dalies elementas negali būti pavartotas kitoje jo dalyje. Kiekvienam kriterijui patvirtinti naudojami pavyzdžiai iš tekstyno. Nustatoma, kad ne visi kriterijai taikomi visiems sudėtiniams sujungiamiesiems sakiniams. Kuo daugiau sujungiamumo kriterijų atitinka tam tikra konstrukcija, tuo ji labiau sujungiamoji, o kuo mažiau tam tikra konstrukcija atitinka sujungiamumo kriterijų, tuo ji mažiau sujungiamoji. Kai kurie kriterijai taikomi ir konstrukcijoms, kurios kitu atveju laikomos pavaldžiomis. Ir atvirkščiai, tam tikri pavaldumo kriterijai taikomi ir kai kurioms konstrukcijoms, kurios kitu atveju yra prijungiamosios. Vietoj griežto skirtumo tarp prijungamųjų ir sujungiamųjų sudėtinių sakinių, atrodo, tikslingiau atsižvelgti į įvairias priklausomybes.

Reikšminiai žodžiai: sintaksė, slovėnų kalba, sudėtinis sakinys, kriterijai, priklausomybės laipsnis, jungtukas

Received: 24.01.2024. Accepted: 21.04.2024
Copyright © 2024 Dejan Gabrovšek. Published by Vilnius University Press. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

1 Introduction

This article discusses the term coordination, as it appears in compound sentences. Most modern studies of subordination and coordination find that the line between the two is unclear and that there are many constructions that cannot be classified clearly as instances of subordination or coordination [Шведова 1980, 462; Quirk 1985, 920; Виноградов 2001, 579; Fabricius-Hansen, Ramm 2008, 7; Holler 2008, 187; Weisser 2015; Žele 2016a, 87; Žele 2016b, 32; Smolej 2018; Belaj, Tanacković Faletar 2020, 16].

Any two clauses joined in a multiclause sentence always depend on each other to some extent, or they would not be joined and would appear on their own as separate sentences. I thus understand coordination and subordination as extremes, and most relationships are in-between, some closer to coordination, others to subordination.

The term coordination is meaningful, but only if defined based on a number of criteria as structures understood as subordinate or coordinate are too variegated to be classified in only two categories. It is expected that not all structures will meet all the criteria for subordination or coordination, which demonstrates that subordination and coordination must be considered prototypical relationships that are not fully realised, however, in a great majority of concrete relationships.

Examples are taken mostly from Gigafida 2.0, a corpus of Slovenian standard language.

2 Criteria for coordination

If a multiclause sentence is to be studied comprehensively, a number of criteria must be considered. A multiclause sentence encompasses at least two clauses, which, to some extent, are semantically and structurally complete units on their own, so the bond between the clauses is far more complex than the bond between two words in a phrase. The focus is on criteria that can be determined as formally as possible and fit an analysis of corpus materials – i.e., as independently from an individual’s interpretation as possible.

Only rare relationships fulfil all criteria for coordination, which is to be expected. Based on the number of fulfilled criteria for coordination, the degree of dependency in an individual relationship can be measured. From the criteria for subordination1 and coordination, I derive the thesis that it is better to posit that there are different degrees of dependency in the connection between two clauses instead of only subordination and coordination.

It should be stressed that this article lists criteria valid for the extremities of coordination: a construction meeting all criteria for coordination represents the lowest degree of dependency or a prototypical instance of coordination.2 Such constructions are few and rarely found in the coordinate pole. Most constructions are “in between,” with a more or less clear tendency towards one pole. Some criteria may also be met by some instances of subordination. Such a result is to be expected and shows that the language system of a multiclause sentence is too complex (with the complexity also indicated by the number of criteria) to be split into two major units. Such an understanding avoids claims that some structures are structurally subordinate and semantically coordinate [Haspelmath 2004, 35; Pogorelec 2021, 88].

The larger number of criteria also allows us to examine constructions that are not instances of a prototypical coordination, e.g. (1–2). These constructions do not meet all the criteria for coordination, but it is important to note that they meet most of the criteria for coordination, so that classification as coordination (even if not prototypical) makes sense. It is to be expected that some of the constructions also meet the individual criteria for subordination.

(1)

Zjutraj	gre	v	mesto	in	čaka.
in the morning	go.ipfv.prs.3sg	in	town.acc.sg	and	wait.ipfv.prs.3sg

‘In the morning, he goes into town and waits.’

(2)

Vztrajajte,	in	zgodilo	se	vam	bo!3
persevere.ipfv.imp.2pl	and	happen.lpt.n.sg	refl.acc	you.dat.pl	aux.fut

‘Persevere, and it will happen!’

The subject of study is always a conjunctive clause4 (i.e., a clause introduced by a conjunction) in relation to its nonconjunctive counterpart as conjunctive clauses can be subordinated to nonconjunctive ones, but not vice versa. In coordination, this is always the second clause.

Each subchapter represents one criterion for coordination. Each criterion is illustrated by at least one Slovenian corpus example. The criteria are based on the characteristics of (proto)typical Slovenian coordination. Each characteristic is therefore also a coordination criterion.

Individual exceptions can be found for almost any criterion, but we still say that the criterion applies to the whole relationship if it applies in the vast majority of examples.

2.1 The same status of both clauses, i.e., symmetricalness

Both clauses have the same status, and the first clause (i.e., the clause with no conjunction) is merely the starting point for the second one [Lang 1984, 22; Lehmann 1988, 184; Haspelmath 2004, 34; Fabricius-Hansen, Ramm 2008, 5; Pekelis 2015; Пипер 2018, 35; Broekhuis, Corver 2019, 6]. If the second clause can be the starting point for the first, we can potentially reverse their order. This allows us (at least potentially) to switch the order of the clauses. If A is coordinated to B, then B is also coordinated to A [Fabricius-Hansen, Ramm 2008, 6].

Perfect symmetricalness or equality is not found even in prototypical instances of coordination: the mere order of constituents (words, clauses) creates a hierarchy between them; moreover, the conjunction is considered part of the second clause [Zhang 2023, 3]. Since words in a text are strung linearly, there can be no other way. However, especially in prototypical conjunctive coordination, this hierarchy is close to 0. Clauses having the same roles enable adding new ones, as noted in the criterion of the possibility of adding clauses.

(3)

Potniki		so	klepetali	in	vešče	so	se
passenger.nom.pl		aux.pst	chat.lpt.m.pl	and	moth.nom.pl	aux.pst	refl.acc
lepile	na	žarnice.
stick.lpt.f.pl	on	light bulb.loc.pl

‘Passengers were chatting and moths were sticking to the light bulbs.’

Almost always, all clauses belong to the same syntactic mood, but for some subtypes of compound sentences, having different syntactic moods is an essential part of the meaning of the whole construction. This applies, for example, to coordination-expressed conditional resultativeness (4), where there is usually a combination of verbs in the imperative and indicative moods. Such constructions express highly specific meanings.

(4)

Daj	mi	denar,	pa	ti	dam	mir.
give.pfv.imp.2sg	I.dat.sg	money.acc.sg	and	you.dat.sg	give.pfv.prs.1sg	peace.acc.sg

‘Give me the money and I’ll leave you alone.’

A dependent clause and a sentence element without a finite verb form can be coordinated, too, but with the precondition that they both have the same syntactic function and they are part of the same argument or adjunct, even if they differ in structural status, example (5). This, too, shows that coordination relates predominantly to the semantic level and not so much to the structural level [Haspelmath 2007, 3; Zhang 2023, 40].

(5)

Sodijo	ji	zaradi	goljufije	pri	bančnih	kreditih	in
try.ipfv.prs.3pl	she.dat.sg	because of	fraud.gen.sg	by	bank.adj.loc.m.pl	credit.loc.pl	and
ker	naj	bi	od	ljudi	izmamila	180.000	evrov.
because	let	cond	from	people.gen.pl	swindle.lpt.f.sg	180.000	euro.gen.pl

‘She’s being tried for bank credit fraud and because she allegedly swindled people out of 180,000 euros.’

2.2 Interchangeability in the order of clauses

In prototypical compound sentences linked with the conjunctions in ‘and’ and ali ‘or’, the order of clauses can be reversed without a change in meaning. This criterion is often cited as a criterion for prototypical coordination [Quirk 1985, 920; Haspelmath 2004, 35; Broekhuis, Corver 2019, 13], but it is realisable only in cases where the temporal relationship between the clauses is simultaneity or is not relevant, and the clauses cannot express a cause–effect relationship. Reversing the order of clauses is possible mainly in conjunctive coordination and disjunction, though not in all subtypes. In most compound sentences, reversing the order is impossible. This criterion assumes the conjunction stays in the same place, i.e., between the clauses.5 Instances where the order can be reversed are thus very rare (6–7, 6a–7a). Permutability in compound sentences is therefore highly limited.

(6)

Predaval	je	na	univerzi	in	pisal	učbenike.
lecture.lpt.m.sg	aux.pst	on	university.loc.sg	and	write.lpt.m.sg	textbooks.acc.pl

‘He lectured at the university and wrote textbooks.’

(6a)

Pisal	je	učbenike	in	predaval	na	univerzi.
write.lpt.m.sg	aux.pst	textbooks.acc.pl	and	lecture.lpt.m.sg	on	university.loc.sg

(7)

Ne	veš	ali	nočeš	povedati?
not	know.ipfv.prs.2sg	or	want.ipfv.prs.2sg.neg	tell.pfv.inf

‘You don’t know or you won’t say?’

(7a)

Nočeš	povedati	ali	ne	veš?
want.ipfv.prs.2sg.neg	tell.pfv.inf	or	not	know.ipfv.prs.2sg

2.2.1 Coordinate Structure Constraint

In a coordinate structure, no conjunct may be moved, nor may any element contained in a conjunct be moved out of that conjunct [Ross 1967, 161; Haspelmath 2004, 29]. In certain cases (criterion 2.2), we can only move the clause as a whole, examples (6–7).

2.3 The noninitial clause expresses new information

Unlike in subordination, where the conjunctive clause restricts the main clause, here the noninitial clause6 adds new information, which, while usually relating to the preceding clause (which is why reversing the order of clauses is possible only in relatively rare cases), does not restrict it as the preceding clause could, in principle, stand-alone given that it is complete at least in structural terms (i.e., all the valency and adjunct positions are taken). In example (8), the second clause could be different, but this would not affect the trueness or status of the first clause.7

A new clause (i.e., new information) is added according to the following principles (Toporišič 2004, 647; Gabrovšek 2023, 252–308):8

1. Addition: conjunctive coordination (A and B):

(8)

Kašo	operemo	in	skuhamo.
kasha.acc.sg	wash.pfv.prs.1pl	and	boil.pfv.prs.1pl

‘We wash and boil the kasha.’

2. Additive correlation;9

(9)

Novice	ni	niti	zanikala	niti	potrdila.10
news	aux.pst.neg	neither	deny.lpt.f.sg	nor	confirm.lpt.f.sg

‘She neither denied nor confirmed the news.’

3. Disjunction (A or B);

(10)

Ne	veš	ali	nočeš	povedati?
not	know.ipfv.prs.2sg	or	want.ipfv.prs.2sg.neg	tell.pfv.inf

‘You don’t know or you won’t say?’

4. Adversativeness (A not B);

(11)

Predlagal	je	ukinitev	stranke,	a	njegov	predlog
propose.lpt.m.sg	aux.pst	dissolution.acc.sg	party.gen.sg	but	his.nom.m.sg	proposal.nom.sg
ni	bil	sprejet.
aux.pst.neg	be.lpt.m.sg	accepted.nom.m.sg

‘He proposed to abolish the party, but his proposal was not accepted.’

5. Causality (A therefore B);

(12)

Daj	mi	denar,	pa	ti	dam	mir.
give.pfv.imp.2sg	I.dat.sg	money.acc.sg	and	you.dat.sg	give.pfv.prs.1sg	peace.acc.sg

‘Give me the money and I’ll leave you alone.’

6. Apposition (A that is B);

(13)

Tožilstvo	je	zahtevalo	višjo	kazen,	in	sicer
prosecution.nom.sg	aux.pst	request.lpt.n.sg	higher.cmpr.acc.f.sg	sentence.acc.sg	and	namely
osem	let	zapora.
eight.acc.sg	year.gen.pl	imprisonment.gen.sg

‘The prosecution asked for a higher sentence of eight years‘ imprisonment.’

7. Resultativeness (A so B);

(14)

Glasba	se	da	tržiti,	torej	je	komercialna.
music.nom.sg	refl.acc	give.ipfv.prs.3sg	market.ipfv.inf	so	aux.pst	commercial.nom.f.sg

‘Music is marketable, so it is commercial.’

According to thematic progression, each clause in a compound sentence has its own theme and rheme [Toporišič 2004, 660]. Each clause connects with the next according to principles of thematic progression, i.e., predominantly semantically and not structurally as is the case in subordinate sentences. This criterion is particularly important in distinguishing supplementary clauses11 from dependent clauses (which are structurally the same): a supplementary clause always introduces new information, which relates to a clause without a conjunction in a two-clause sentence; however, the link between them is always additive.

2.3.1 The final clause in a sentence determines the final intonation and terminal punctuation

Due to the linear structure of a compound sentence, the final intonation and terminal punctuation are determined by the last clause. The criterion of all clauses having the same status severely limits the possibility of one clause occurring in another syntactic mood than the rest, though. A survey of materials shows that at least in conjunctive coordination, disjunction, adversative coordination and additive correlation, all clauses are in the same mood as a rule, with rare exceptions.12 A survey of interrogative clauses at the end of sentences reveals that all the clauses in a sentence are interrogative and thus all have the same function, even though the interrogative words can be different. Example (16) combines clauses in the imperative and indicative moods. In subordination, the interrogative sentence can be embedded in the matrix clause, but it loses its illocutionary force. Here, the conjunctive clause, which is also the last clause of the sentence, must be interrogative for the terminal punctuation to be a question mark (15).

(15)

Rada	bi	kdaj	naredila	torto,	ampak	kje	naj	najdem	čas?
like.nom.f.sg	cond	when	make.lpt.f.sg	cake.acc.sg	but	where	let	find.pfv.prs.1sg	time.acc.sg

‘I’d like to make a cake sometime, but where can I find the time?’

(16)

Stoj	ali	streljam!
stop.pfv.imp.2sg	or	shoot.ipfv.prs.1sg

‘Stop or I’ll shoot!’

2.3.2 Relating to the first clause as a whole

The nonfirst clause relates to the preceding clause as a whole, examples (15–16). This criterion applies particularly to constructions that meet all or almost all of the criteria for coordination criteria.

2.4 Possibility of adding clauses

In multiple coordination, it is possible to add an (arbitrary) number of clauses [Quirk 1985, 925]. Here, each clause refers to the one preceding it, unlike in subordination, where several can refer to one main clause. The number of syntactically and semantically equal clauses is unlimited.13 This criterion only applies to conjunctive coordination and disjunction (though not to all subtypes of the two); all other types of coordination can only consist of two parts.

(17)

V	ponvi	raztopite	maslo,	dodajte
in	pan.loc.sg	melt.pfv.imp.2pl	butter.acc.sg	add.pfv.imp.2pl
por	in	pršut,	popražite	in
leek.acc.sg	and	prosciutto.acc.sg	roast.pfv.imp.2pl	and
ju	nato	poberite	iz	ponve.
she.acc.du	then	take.pfv.imp.2pl	out of	pan.gen.sg

‘Melt butter in a pan, add chopped leek and prosciutto, fry them and then take them out of the pan.’

This criterion also applies to compound dependent clauses (18); as a result, multiple clauses can refer to the same main clause.

(18)

Zatrdili	so,	da	vse	poteka	po	načrtih	in	da	bo
claim.lpt.m.pl	aux.pst	that	all.nom.n.sg	run.ipfv.prs.3sg	according	plan.lpc.pl	and	that	aux.fut
dvorana	nared.
hall.nom.sg	ready.adj

‘They claimed that everything was going according to plan and that the hall would be ready.’

2.5 Clauses cannot be questioned separately

Clauses cannot be questioned separately in a compound sentence [Haspelmath 2004, 30; Belaj, Tanacković Faletar 2020, 22, 68; Uhlik, Žele 2022, 126]. A compound sentence presents a fairly complete single situation, even though the latter consists of several units, i.e., clauses.

While a part of a clause can be questioned, a single clause in a compound sentence cannot: although each clause is semantically at least partly independent, there is a reason they are placed together in a multiclause sentence: the mere fact that they are placed together in a multiclause sentence and not as separate sentences shows that there is a need for combining, which in turn shows that the clauses in a multiclause sentence are not completely independent, so even clauses within a compound sentence cannot be deemed fully independent semantically.

The question Kaj se dogaja/se je zgodilo? ‘What is going on/happened?’ can only be answered with the whole sentence and not merely one clause. Example (19) presents one situation or one claim each. The question for example (19) is Kaj se je zgodilo? ‘What happened?’ The question should cover the entirety; Kaj so poskušati storiti gasilci? ‘What did the firefighters try to do?’ only asks only about part of the first clause (poskušali so pogasiti požar ‘they tried to put out the flames’) and not the clause as a whole.14

(19)

Gasilci	so	poskušali	požar	pogasiti,	vendar	je
firefighter.nom.pl	aux.pst	try.lpt.m.pl	flame.acc.sg	put out.pfv.inf	but	aux.pst
vozilo	vseeno	zgorelo.
vehicle.nom.sg	anyway	burn.lpt.n.sg

‘The firefighters tried to put out the flames, but the vehicle burned up anyway.’

2.6 Temporal Iconicity Principle

The sequence of events matches the sequence of clauses, events can take place simultaneously, or their temporality is not expressed [Weisser 2015, 158; Belaj, Tanacković Faletar 2020, 117; Gabrovšek 2024a]. The sequence of clauses cannot be the opposite of the sequence of events. A characteristic example is (20); a different sequence of clauses is impossible (20a).15 Thus, out of six permutations (3 × 2 × 1), only one is possible.16 Relatively arbitrary alteration in the order of clauses is possible if temporality is not expressed, but not if it is. The tense in compound sentences is absolute, and this applies to each clause separately. The sequence of events [Krvina 2019; Gabrovšek, Krvina 2022, 575] is clearly expressed in examples (20–21).

(20)

Prišel,	videl,	zmagal.
come.lpt.m.sg	see.lpt.m.sg	conquer.lpt.m.sg

‘I came, I saw, I conquered.’

(20a)

*Videl,	prišel,	zmagal.17
see.lpt.m.sg	come.lpt.m.sg	conquer.lpt.m.sg

‘*I saw, I came, I conquered.’

(21)

Spodnjo	nogo	skrčimo,	zgornjo	zategnemo	in	jo
lower.acc.f.sg	leg.acc.sg	bend.pfv.prs.1pl	upper.acc.f.sg	tighten.pfv.prs.1pl	and	she.acc.sg
dvignemo	navzgor,	zadržimo,	spustimo	in sprostimo.
lift.pfv.prs.1pl	up	hold.pfv.prs.1pl	lower.pfv.prs.1pl	and relax.pfv.prs.1pl

‘We bend the lower leg, stretch the upper leg and lift it up, hold it still, lower it and relax.’

The Temporal Iconicity Principle is necessary because compound sentences include no specialised temporal conjunctions specifying the order of events (e.g., preden ‘before’). As noted in other criteria for coordination, linearity is an important property of coordination: this applies both to the expressive and the semantic level and also affects the way of describing extralinguistic reality.18 In generally valid statements, no temporal sequence is expressed (22).

(22)

Ulomke	seštevamo,	odštevamo,	množimo	in	delimo.19
fraction.acc.pl	add.ipfv.prs.1pl	subtract.ipfv.prs.1pl	multiply.ipfv.prs.1pl	and	divide.ipfv.prs.1pl

‘You can add, subtract, multiply and divide fractions.’

In such cases, in particular, the order of clauses can be altered (quite) arbitrarily as the realisation of one clause does not affect the realisation of another. All permutations are thus possible, i.e., 4 × 3 × 2 × 1. Such examples also fulfil the criterion on interchangeability in the order of sentences with no (major) change in meaning.

2.7 Ellipsis

Ellipsis is more common and more systematic in coordination [Quirk 1985, 924; Haspelmath 2004, 31; Broekhuis, Corver 2019, 271; Uhlik, Žele 2022, 128; Gabrovšek 2024b]. The reason lies in the structural equality of the sentences. As the clauses are structurally equal, they can complement each other, and repeated arguments can be left out, which they usually are. Arguments must be expressed first (with the exception of the subject, which is evident from the finite verb form) before being left out. In some cases, there is almost complete gapping of the noninitial clause (24). In coordination, backwards ellipsis occurs only sporadically [Haspelmath 2004, 32; Gabrovšek 2024b].

(23)

Kašoi	operemo	in	Øi skuhamo.
kasha.acc.sg	wash.pfv.prs.1pl	and	boil.pfv.prs.1pl

‘We wash and boil the kasha.’

(24)

So	se	pričakovanja	uresničila	ali	ne Ø?
aux.pst	refl.acc	expectation.nom.pl	fulfil.lpt.n.pl	or	not

‘Have the expectations been fulfilled or not?’

2.8 No backwards anaphora

This criterion is based on the same premise as the functioning of ellipsis: arguments are first expressed with a lexical word before they can be left out (ellipsis) or expressed with a pronoun [Quirk 1985, 922; Orešnik 1992, 73; Haspelmath 2004, 35; Gabrovšek 2024b].20 Example (25) is ungrammatical.

(25) *Hisi wife worked/working at the mountain, (and) the old mani tended the store [Haspelmath 2004, 35].

Some sporadic examples of backwards anaphora are possible, though (26), but not in conjunctive coordination [Gabrovšek 2024b]. In subordination, backwards anaphora is possible, and in some types, it is quite common.

(26)

Morski	pes	se	je	večkrat	zagnal	vanjoi,	a
sea.nom.m.sg	dog.nom.sg	refl.acc	aux.pst	repeatedly	chase.lpt.m.sg	in she.acc.sg	but
najstnicii	je	uspelo	pobegniti.
teenager.dat.f.sg	aux.pst	manage.lpt.n.sg	escape.pfv.inf

‘The shark repeatedly chased her, but the teenager managed to escape.’

2.9 The relationship can be expressed phrasally

Prototypical types of coordination (conjunctive coordination, disjunction, adversativeness) can also be expressed in a phrase [Quirk 1985, 923; Zhang 2023, 2]. For other types of coordination, this is rare or impossible. Conjunctive phrases, in particular, are very common (27);21 disjunctive ones are rarer, and adversative ones are mostly limited to combinations of two adjectives (28). This criterion is also met by concessive subordination.

(27)

Start	in	cilj	bosta	ob	hipodromu.
start.nom.sg	and	finish line.nom.sg	aux.fut	besides	hippodrome.loc.sg

‘The start and finish lines will be next to the hippodrome.’

(28)

Notranja	razporeditev	je	nenavadna,	vendar	prostorna.
interior.nom.f.sg	layout.nom.sg	aux.pst	unusual.nom.f.sg	but	spacious.nom.f.sg

‘The interior layout is unusual but spacious.’

2.10 A conjunction gravitates towards the place between the penultimate and last clauses

As a rule, in a multiclause sentence, the conjunction is placed only between the last two clauses, though it can also occur between each pair of clauses [Quirk 1985, 927; Haspelmath 2004, 18]. Each clause can be preceded by a conjunction, and conjunctions are equal in status, like clauses [Haspelmath 2004, 35]. The presence or absence of a conjunction thus does not affect the status of individual clauses.22 There is a strong tendency for a conjunction to link only the penultimate and last clauses, example (22). This is particularly common in cases where there are only two clauses.

2.11 A conjunction, particle or adverb cannot proceed a coordinating conjunction

A coordinating conjunction cannot link a unit introduced by another coordinating conjunction [Quirk 1985, 923]. In example (29), pa is a particle as it only puts additional emphasis on the message and can be left out.

(29)

Veliko	težav	lahko	povzročijo	bolhači	in	pa
lot.adv	trouble.gen.pl	can.adv	cause.pfv.prs.3pl	flea beetles.nom.pl	and	and
ličinke	repine	grizlice.
larva.nom.pl	turnip.gen.f.sg	sawfly.gen.sg

‘Significant trouble can also be caused by flea beetles as well as larvae of the turnip sawfly.’

A coordinating conjunction cannot be preceded by a particle or adverb as the latter cannot modify the whole clause (as it does in subordination) due to the independence of coordinate clauses; it also cannot modify the conjunction alone as the latter does not carry objective meaning.

3 Multiclause sentence system based on criteria for subordination and coordination

Given the diversity of criteria and the diversity of structures forming multiclause sentences, it is sensible to posit that there are different degrees of dependency between two clauses instead of only the coordination–subordination pair. The more criteria for subordination a particular structure fulfils, the more subordinate it is, and the more criteria for coordination it fulfils, the more coordinate it is. It has been shown that some criteria for subordination also apply to certain structures normally considered coordinate, and some criteria for coordination also apply to structures normally considered subordinate. There is no clear line between coordination and subordination, but rather a continuous gradient. There are even differences among structures usually deemed subordinate or coordinate.

The actual state can be approximated by splitting a multiclause sentence into a number of smaller units as regards the (non)fulfilment of individual criteria.23

In my research on the Slovenian multiclause sentence (Gabrovšek 2023), I applied all the criteria for coordination to all the main types of the Slovenian multiclause sentence. If the criterion is fulfilled by relationship, it receives 1 to 3 points, depending on its importance. The sum of all scores is 30: only some instances of conjunctive and disjunctive coordination fulfil all the criteria, but here the division is not so detailed as to be obvious.

We have excluded some criteria from the graphs because it is often difficult to determine whether a criterion is valid or not, or only valid for certain relationships. These criteria are: Coordinate Structure Constraint, a conjunction gravitates towards the place between the penultimate and last clauses, a conjunction, particle or adverb cannot proceed a coordinating conjunction.

Criteria with number of points are:

1. Symmetricalness: 3

2. The final clause determines the final intonation and terminal punctuation: 3

3. Interchangeability in the order of clauses: 3

4. The noninitial clause expresses new information: 3

5. Relating to the first clause as a whole: 3

6. Ellipsis: 3

7. No backwards anaphora: 3

8. Temporal Iconicity Principle: 3

9. Possibility of adding clauses: 2

10. Clauses cannot be questioned separately: 2

11. The relationship can be expressed phrasally: 2

Table 1: Criteria for coordination for all types of Slovenian multiclause sentences

	Arguments	Adjuncts	Supplementary clauses24	Added propositions and parentheses25	Secondary coordination	Primary coordination
1.	0	0	0	0	3	3
2.	0	0	0	3	3	3
3.	0	0	0	0	1	1
4.	0	0	3	3	3	3
5.	0	0	2	1	2	3
6.	0	0	3	3	3	3
7.	0	0	1	0	3	3
8.	0	0	0	0	3	3
9.	0	0	0	0	0	1
10.	0	0	0	1	2	2
11.	0	1	0	1	1	2
sum	0	1	9	12	25	27

Graph 1: Degree of coordination for all types of Slovenian multiclause sentences

In Table 2 and Graph 2, we only consider coordination: it appears that primary coordination meets (almost) all the criteria for coordination, while secondary coordination meets most of them. The decrease in the degree of coordination from the conjunctive coordination towards the secondary coordination is also clearly visible. This shows that even the primary coordination does not behave in the same way either.

Table 2: Criteria for coordination for all types of Slovenian coordination

	Primary coordination				Secondary coordination
	Conjunctive coordination	Disjunctive coordination	Adversative coordination	Additive correlation	Causality	Apposition	Resultativeness
1.	3	3	3	3	3	3	3
2.	3	3	3	3	3	3	3
3.	1	1	0	0	0	0	0
4.	3	3	3	3	3	3	3
5.	3	3	3	3	3	2	3
6.	3	3	3	3	3	3	3
7.	3	3	3	3	3	3	3
8.	3	3	3	3	3	3	3
9.	2	1	0	0	0	0	0
10.	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
11.	2	2	2	2	0	0	1
sum	28	27	25	25	23	22	24

Graph 2: Degree of coordination for all types of Slovenian coordination

4 Conclusion

The article has demonstrated the complexity of the multiclause sentence system, which makes it sensible and necessary to study multiclause sentences from the perspective of a number of criteria, both structural and semantic. The determination of these criteria, which is based on existing literature and corpus-based research, enables a more accurate understanding of the multiclause sentence system, and, notably, clearly shows that the term coordination may be sensible, but only as extreme point of orientation.

Abbreviations

ACC – accusative; ADJ – adjective; ADV – adverb; AUX – auxiliary verb; CMPR – comparative; DAT – dative; DU – dual; F – feminine gender; FUT – future tense; GEN – genitive; IMP – imperative mood; IND – indicative mood; INF – infinitive; INS – instrumental; IPFV – imperfective aspect; LOC – locative; LPT – L participle; M – masculine gender; N – neuter gender; NEG – negation; NOM – nominative case; PFV – perfective aspect; PL – plural; PRS – present; PST – past tense; REFL – reflexive pronoun; SG – singular; 1 – first person; 2 – second person; 3 – third person

Data Sources

Portal Fran: https://www.fran.si/

Gigafida corpus: https://viri.cjvt.si/gigafida/

Gigafida corpus in the NoSketch Engine tool: https://www.clarin.si/noske/sl.cgi/first_form

References

Belaj, B., Tanacković Faletar, G., 2020. Kognitivna gramatika hrvatskoga jezika. Sintaksa složene rečenice. Zagreb: Disput.

BROEKHUIS, H., CORVER, N., 2019. Syntax of Dutch Coordination and Ellipsis. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Fabricius-Hansen, C., Ramm, W., 2008. Editor’s introduction: Subordination and coordination from different perspectives. In FABRICIUS-HANSEN, C. (ed.). ‘Subordination’ versus ‘Coordination’ in Sentence and Text. A cross-linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1–33.

GABROVŠEK, D., 2019. Tipologija nestavčnočlenskih nematičnih dopolnil, Jezikoslovni zapiski, 25(2). 83–96. https://doi.org/10.3986/JZ.25.2.5

GABROVŠEK, D., 2021. Termina priredje in podredje z vidika stopenj odvisnosti. In KOČNIK, N. (ed.). 9. Simpozij mladih slavistov. Mejniki in prelomnice v slovanskih jezikih in literaturah. Študentska sekcija Zveze društev Slavistično društvo Slovenije. Ljubljana, 259–272.

GABROVŠEK, D., 2023. Slovenska zložena poved z vidika stopenj odvisnosti. PhD Thesis. Ljubljana, Radomlje.

GABROVŠEK, D., 2024a. Ikoničnost v priredjih. In VOGEL, J. (ed.). Podoba v slovenskem jeziku, literaturi in kulturi: 60. seminar slovenskega jezika, literature in kulture. Ljubljana: Založba univerze, 90–100. https://doi.org/10.4312/SSJLK.60.2386-057X.

GABROVŠEK, D., 2024b. Backwards Anaphora and Backwards Elipsis in Slovenian Multi-Clause Sentences. Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies, 16. Forthcoming.

GABROVŠEK, D., KRVINA, D., 2022. Skladenjsko razmerje med istoizraznim prislovom in veznikom – opis glede na njuno mesto in funkcijo v povedi ter obravnava zlasti v SSKJ, Slavistična revija, 70(4). 573–589. https://doi.org/10.57589/srl.v70i4.4083

GABROVŠEK, D., KRVINA, D., 2023. Vloga permutativnosti pri določanju in razvrščanju skladenjskih pomenov. In SCHLAMBERGER BREZAR, M., SMOLEJ, M. (ed.). Prispevki k preučevanju slovenske skladnje. Ljubljana. Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani, 59–75.

Gabrovšek, D., ŽELE, A., 2019. Tipologija stavčnočlenskih odvisnikov v slovenščini, Slavistična revija, 67(3). 487–507. https://srl.si/ojs/srl/article/view/2019-3-1-5

HASPELMATH, M., 2004. Coordinating constructions: An overview. In HASPELMATH, M. (ed.). Coordinating constructions. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 3–39.

Haspelmath, M., 2007. Coordination. In SHOPEN, T. (ed.). Language typology and syntactic description, vol. II: Complex constructions. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–51.

Holler, A., 2008. German dependent clauses from a constraint-based perspective. In FABRICIUS-HANSEN, C. (ed.). ‘Subordination’ versus ‘Coordination’ in Sentence and Text. A cross-linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 187–216.

Krvina, D., 2019. Zaporednost dejanj in njen vpliv na rabo glagolskega vida v slovenščini, Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies, 12. 75–93. https://doi.org/10.3986/sjsls.12.1.05

LANG, E., 1984. The Semantics of Coordination. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Lehmann, C., 1988. Towards a typology of clause linkage. In HAIMAN, J., THOMPSON, S. (ed.). Clause combining in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 181–225.

Orešnik, J., 1992. Udeleženske vloge v slovenščini. Ljubljana: SAZU.

Pogorelec, B., 2021. Veznik v slovenščini. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU.

Quirk, R., 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. New York: Longman.

Ross, J., 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Smolej, M., 2018. Skladenjske konstrukcije med podredjem in priredjem, Slovenščina 2.0, 6(2). 186–205. https://doi.org/10.4312/slo2.0.2018.2.186-205

TOPORIŠIČ, J., 1982. Nova slovenska skladnja. Ljubljana: DZS.

Toporišič, J., 2004. Slovenska slovnica. Maribor: Obzorja.

Weisser, P., 2015. Derived Coordination: A Minimalist Perspective on Clause Chains, Converbs and Asymmetric Coordination. Berlin, Boston: Walter de Gruyter.

Zhang, N., 2023. Coordinate Structures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

ŽELE, A., 2016a. Odvisniki v slovenščini: vsebinski odvisniki in nepravi prislovnodoločilni odvisniki, Slavistična revija, 64(2). 81–94. https://srl.si/ojs/srl/article/view/COBISS_ID-61135714

Žele, A., 2016b. O razlikah med priredno in podredno izraženim razmerjem, Jezikoslovni zapiski, 22(2). 31‒43. https://ojs.zrc-sazu.si/jz/article/view/6972

Uhlik, M., Žele, A., 2022. Rusko-slovenska skladnja: propozicijska in medpropozicijska razmerja. Ljubljana: Založba Univerze v Ljubljani.

Виноградов, В., 2001. Русский язык (Грамматическое учение о слове). Москва: Русский язык.

Пекелис, О., 2015. Сочинение и подчинение. Русская корпусная грамматика. http://rusgram.ru/new/

Пипер, П., 2018. Синтакса сложене реченице у савременом српском jезику. Нови Сад, Београд: Матица српска, Институт за српски jезик САНУ.

Шведова, Н., 1980. Русская грамматика. Москва: Издательство наука.

Transliteration

Pekelis, O., 2015. Sočinenie i podčinenie. Russkaja korpusnaja grammatika. http://rusgram.ru/new/

Piper, P., 2018. Sintaksa složene rečenice u savremenom srpskom jeziku. Novi Sad, Beograd: Matica srpska, Institut za srpski jezik SANU.

SHvedova, N., 1980. Russkaja grammatika. Moskva: Izdatelʼstvo nauka.

Vinogradov, V., 2001. Russkij jazyk (Grammatičeskoe učenie o slove). Moskva: Russkij jazyk.

1 Criteria for subordination are the subject of another study with the same methodology.
2 These include primarily examples with conjunctions and, or, but (in, ali, ampak in Slovene) [Zhang 2023].
3 [tag = "Gg.v.*"] [] {0,3] [word ="in"] [] {0,3} [tag="Gg.[dsp].*"]
4 In the case of an asyndeton, this is the clause where a conjunction could be inserted by analogy to similar examples.
5 While this has not been highlighted, the order of clauses can be reversed almost completely arbitrarily (naturally, with a slight change in meaning as well) in complex sentences, but in that case the order changes the entire clause, including the conjunction [Gabrovšek, Krvina 2023, 61].
6 So termed because there is no main clause, and coordinate clauses are arranged linearly.
7 To some extent, this is also due to the Temporal Iconicity Principle of the clauses, as the content of the first clause has already taken place, and the content of the second clause has no retroactive effect.
8 In Slovenian studies, the term coordination is understood more broadly than in English studies [Toporišič 1982, 27; Toporišič 2004; Haspelmath 2004; Quirk 1985, 920].
9 Correlative conjunctions are quite common for this coordination.
10 [word="niti"] [] {0,3} [tag="Gg.*"] []{0,3} [word="niti"]
11 This category includes nonrestrictive relative clause and some constructions, e.g., those introduced by the conjunction medtem ko ‘while’ with the adversative meaning [Gabrovšek 2019].
12 The use of different syntactic moods is freer in subordination; in some cases, it is even possible to use imperative mood.
Sem
rekel,
da
počakaj.
aux.pst
say.lpt.m.sg
that
wait.pfv.imp.2sg
‘I told you to wait.’
13 A very common type is sequence of events [Krvina 2019].
14 Most questions are like this, so it is possible to extract a whole main clause as it structurally and semantically functions as part of the main clause, e.g., the question for the whole dependent clause in the example Kdor račune plačuje redno, je dober gospodar ‘Whoever pays their bills regularly is a good proprietor’ is Kdo je dober gospodar? ‘Who is a good proprietor?’.
15 With the use of specialised conjunctions, it is possible, however, in dependent clauses of time.
16 Temporal Iconicity Principle can be expressed in almost all types of multiclause sentences, but it is only obligatory in coordination: in other relations, it is only one of the possibilities. Therefore, this criterion is only met by coordination.
17 In a specific context, this order would be possible, too.
18 A dependent clause of time is thus a much better choice for describing different temporal relationships between events, while conjunctive coordination is better suited to enumeration [Gabrovšek, Žele 2019, 498].
19 [tag="Gg.*"][][tag="Gg.*"][][tag="Gg.*"], negative filters [word="\."] and [tag="Gg.[nm].*"]
20 The first clause of a compound sentence can include anaphoric pronouns, but they relate to the previous sentence.
21 To some extent, this is also demonstrated by a compound subject requiring a nonsingular form of the verb, though there are cases with the verb in singular, e.g.: Start in cilj maratona je v Kamniku ‘The start and finish line of the marathon is in Kamnik’. Instead of je ‘is’ it should be sta ‘are’. This shows that text creators can consider a compound unit as one unit and not composed of two or more units.
22 The same applies to phrases. In particular, additive correlation and disjunction are characterised by correlative conjunctions (ne samo – ampak tudi ‘not only – but also’, ali – ali ‘or – or’): these conjunctions do not break this rule because they are an exception in coordination.
23 Naturally, such units can be split into yet smaller parts.
24 These are clauses that are introduced by originally subordinating conjunctions and express a typical coordinate relationship [Gabrovšek 2019; Gabrovšek 2023]. In English, they partially overlap with non-restrictive attributive clauses.
25 Added propositions are multiclause sentences punctuated with a colon or semicolon. The second clause usually refers to the last sentence element of the first clause.

Sem	rekel,	da	počakaj.
aux.pst	say.lpt.m.sg	that	wait.pfv.imp.2sg