Basic concepts

The Greek syndesis literally means ‘binding together’. It refers to the use of connectives (see below for this term) that link clauses with each other. Asyndesis is the absence of such connectives, i.e. the mere juxtaposition of clauses. This section introduces these connectives. They are an integral part of the syntactic constructions in the domain of junction. The constructions themselves are not dealt with here, but in the other subsections of the chapter ‘complex-sentence formation’. Many of those constructions are subdivided, at some lower level of the conceptual hierarchy, by the parameter ‘syndesis vs. asyndesis’. For instance, the treatment of the English object complement clause will mention that, under certain conditions, the conjunction that may be omitted, as in I know (that) you are right.

In other words, explicitness of linking – syndesis vs. asyndesis and the particular connectives employed – is a low-level parameter in the semasiological approach. Complex constructions are not primarily classified by the connective employed (as in many traditional and early structuralist treatments), but by the other parameters of complex-sentence formation. From a structural point of view, a connective is one of a set of slot-fillers in a construction. The generic concept of the construction involves the slot; its filling by the particular connective is just an instantiation of that construction defined by the choice of an element from a paradigm.

For instance, a semasiological description of German complex-sentence formation comprises the following construction:

Diagram 1 formalizes a certain type of adversative coordination of two independent clauses which are structurally parallel, but differ in the lexical choice (A and B, resp.) for a certain syntactic component C. The paradigm of Conn comprises aber ‘but’ and sondern ‘but’. In that slot, aber implies that the content of S₂ somehow makes up for the failure of the content of S₁, as in .a. Sondern implies that claiming or presupposing the content of S₁ was wrong, and S₂ is right, as in .b.

Asyndesis

In the narrow sense, asyndesis is the combination of clauses without connectives. In a wider sense, it is a coordinative or paratactic technique at any syntactic level between the combination of words into phrases and the combination of sentences into pieces of text.¹ Here we will concentrate on the combination of clauses, with a side-glance at the combination of sentences.

A sentence (i.e. one that corresponds to the norm) is characterized by a unified intonation contour. To the extent that the latter's shape is part of the linguistic system, it is a basic structural means of clause linkage, one that remains even with asyndesis, i.e. in the absence of any other structural means coding the unity of the sentence. The intonation contour, however, does not code any specific kind of relation between the clauses; it simply guarantees the structural unity of the sentence.

The combination of clauses into a sentence normally presupposes some interpropositional relation between them. In asyndesis, this is by definition not coded. It is inferred from the meaning of the clauses, from the context and from world-knowledge. Thus, in a sentence like we know that the interpropositional relation involved is causal.

What is important here is that the causal relation is not part of the meaning (i.e. significatum) of the (asyndetic) construction. A completely asyndetic construction can by definition not carry an interpropositional meaning. It is the sense construed in the speech situation which comprises the causal relation.

Syndesis

A clause connective is a formative which links clauses into a complex sentence. There are two kinds of it:

• A coordinative connective links two clauses of the same syntactic status; it is a conjunction.
• A subordinative connective subordinates one clause under the other; it is a subjunction.

The following is devoted to connectives linking sentences and clauses. Two things need to be noted about the term ‘connective’. First and needless to say, it means “overt connective”, or else it could never serve to make the distinction between syndesis and asyndesis. Second, although a connective is sometimes understood to be a word, this implication must be dropped here; cf. below.

Distribution of connectives

In semasiological grammar, the principal criterion for the classification of connectives is their distribution.

Level of combination

The first criterion is the level at which the connectives operate:

• a sentence connective combines a sentence with a neighboring sentence (.a),
• a clause connective combines a clause with a neighboring clause (.b).

For clause level connectives, the next distinction is between coordinative and subordinative connectives, called conjunctions and subjunctions resp. Assuming two clauses p and q, then if the connective links p and q at the same syntactic level – essentially, by a relation of sociation – it is a conjunction (.b); if it subordinates p under q – essentially, by a dependency relation –, it is a subjunction (.c). A subordinated clause will be symbolized by ↴S; its superordinated counterpart will be symbolized by S↴.

A viable operative test to ascertain whether a clause with its connective is dependent is the permutation test. It presupposes that the connective is a constituent of one of the clauses. This tends to be true even for seemingly symmetrical connectives like and, which are demonstrably the introductory element of the following coordinate constituent (). Given this, the permutation test involves relocation of the clause which contains the connective. and illustrate its application.

Given the syntactic relation of a connective with one of the connected clauses, then

• if permutation of the clauses changes or destroys the meaning (or even the syntax), it is a paratactic construction, and the connective is coordinative ();
• if permutation of the clauses conserves the meaning, it is a hypotactic construction, and the connective is subordinative ().

It must be conceded, though, that certain types of subordinate clause (notably, consective clauses) do not easily permute, or even not at all.

Topology of connectives

Another criterion in the classification of connectives is the way and the sequential position in which they combine with one or both of the connected clauses. The subdivision is as follows:

• Simple connectives
  • Symmetric connective: the connective is not a constituent of either clause.
  • Asymmetric connective: the connective is a constituent of one of the clauses.
    Position: initial, final, inside the clause.
• Paired connectives: each connected constituent bears a connective
  • Repetition of the same formative
  • Distinct paired formatives
  Such constructions are sometimes called ‘polysyndetic’, although constructions needing more than one connective per clause are not known.

Examples of (structurally!) symmetric connectives are not easy to come by. The English words and and or are symmetric in propositional calculus, but not in syntax. Examples like clearly prove that they belong to the clause they precede.

As for asymmetric connectives, examples for their different sequential positions with respect to their clause are:

• initial position: most coordinative and all subordinative connectives in English.
• final position: all subordinative connectives in Japanese.
• intraclausal position: Latin -que “and”, enim “for, to wit”, English thus, however (optionally).

Examples of paired connectives are:

• repeated paired connective: Latin et ... et “both ... and”, aut ... aut “either ... or”
• distinct paired connective: English both ... and, either ... or.

These connectives occur in paratactic constructions. There may also be paired connectives in hypotactic constructions, like English if ... then, because ... therefore, although ... nevertheless. However, these particular English examples should probably not be analyzed as paired connectives, because the second part is optional, there is a (small) paradigm for it, and it is not even admissible if the clauses are inverted.

On the other hand, a paired connective may even be analyzed as a discontinuous morpheme if neither of the two parts can occur independently with the same (component) meaning. This is not the case for any of the paired connectives adduced here.

Correlative pronouns are a special kind of paired connectives. Examples are in the section on relative constructions.

Morphology of connectives

Morphological complexity and bondedness

Syndesis is a gradual phenomenon which ranges from full explicitness of an interpropositional relation by a connective phrase down to its minimal indication by a verbal mood or a change in intonation. Structural means that do not take the form of connective words positioned at clause boundaries are often not subsumed under syndesis; i.e. complex sentences exhibiting only such structural means of clause linkage would be regarded as asyndetic. In any case, syndesis is a gradient ranging from maximally explicit clause linkage down to asyndesis. The following example series illustrates the syndesis gradient:

Source: section 4.2.2 of:

Lehmann, Christian 1988, "Towards a typology of clause linkage." Haiman, John & Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: J. Benjamins (Typological Studies in Language, 18); 181-225.

The series illustrates, in turn:

• : phrasal connective (involving a prepositional phrase)
• : (deverbal) derived connective
• : compound connective (composed of relators)
• : elementary connective
• : universal subordinator (“complementizer”)
• : infinitivizing suffix.

The order corresponds to increasing grammaticalization.

A systematic morphological classification of connectives might run as follows:

1. phrasal connective
2. one-word connective
   1. complex connective
      1. compound connective
      2. derived connective
   2. simple connective
      1. connective out of a paradigm
      2. universal subordinator
3. bound connective
   1. affixal connective
   2. other

This classification combines the two criteria of morphological complexity and bondedness. Although these tend to correlate (inversely), it may be necessary to consider them separately.

Morphosemantics of connectives

In a semasiological perspective, the members of the paradigm(s) of connectives are analyzed morphologically as in the preceding section; and then each morpheme is analyzed as to its distribution and semantic variation.

Just as many morphologically complex adpositions result from the univerbation of formatives composing a syntactic construction, the same goes for morphologically complex clause connectives.

1. If ↴S is oriented, the argument towards which it is oriented may be represented by a formal noun or by a light head.
2. The subordinate status or nominalization of ↴S may be indicated by a (universal) subordinator.
3. The particular interpropositional relation born by ↴S with respect to S↴ may be coded by an interpropositional relator. If this is weakly grammaticalized, it may be a relational noun or a verb form. With stronger grammaticalization, it may be a case relator. Complex connective locutions may contain both.

The subordinate clause in is a substantive clause, so the complex connective a fim de que ‘in order that’ contains no instance of #1. The formative que ‘that’ is the universal subordinator mentioned in #2. The preposition a ‘to’ is the case relator, and the noun fim ‘end, purpose’ is the relational noun mentioned in #3.

The subordinated clause in is oriented to its temporal adjunct. The subjunction zaman ‘when’ is a formal noun meaning ‘time’. It takes a prenominal relative clause subordinated by the suffix -dig, lit. “(at) the time that”. There is here no instance of #3.

Interpropositional relators and case relators have many general properties in common; and a particular interpropositional relator like the causal one may be semantically similar to a particular case relator like the ablative or instrumental. As a consequence, many relators are polysemous between a use as case relator and a use as a subjunction.

• A subjunction may be identical to an adposition, as English before.
• An affixal connective may be identical to a case suffix, as Quechua -manda is a causal connective on clauses, but an ablative case on nouns.
• A complex connective often consists of a case relator and a subordinator. Thus, Spanish porque ‘because’ consists of the case relator por ‘by’ and the universal subordinator que ‘that’.²

In many languages, conjunctions may be derived in a regular way from subjunctions. This is illustrated in a separate section.

Connectives sometimes have a basic meaning (or etymology) that points to interactive discourse organization. For instance:

• A disjunctive connective of irrelevant choice may stem from a word meaning ‘perhaps’ (e.g. Mandarin huo(zhe/shi) or from a verb leaving the choice to the hearer (e.g. Latin vel, imperative of volo ‘want’).
• A concessive conjunction may stem from a word conveying an allowance made by an interlocutor, as Latin quamvis (how([much]:you_want) ‘although’ and licet (it_is_allowed) ‘though’.

¹ The use of the term ‘asyndesis’ with reference to the text level is current in stylistics and rhetoric.

² The converse is possible, too: A complex case relator may consist of a connective plus a simple case relator, like English because of.