You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Coordination and subordination are the two fundamental mechanisms by which English combines clauses into larger units. The difference between them is, at bottom, a difference of rank: coordination joins units of equal grammatical status, while subordination makes one unit dependent on — embedded within — another. This sounds like a small technical point, but it is one of the most consequential choices a producer makes, because the balance of coordination and subordination shapes a text's style, register, complexity, pace and even its logic. For AQA 7702, grammar is a method of analysis integrated across Paper 1, Paper 2 and the NEA, and the primary objective served by naming a coordinator, a subordinate clause or a paratactic style is AO1 (methods and terminology), within the full grid of AO1 26 · AO2 26 · AO3 23 · AO4 15 · AO5 10. As always, the higher marks come not from labelling clause relations but from arguing what those relations do for meaning, audience and effect (AO2–AO3). The descriptive framework is that of Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech and Svartvik (1985), who distinguish coordination, subordination and the further relation of embedding within the clause complex.
Coordination links two or more units of equal grammatical rank — words with words, phrases with phrases, clauses with clauses — so that neither element is grammatically dependent on the other. When two clauses are coordinated, each could in principle stand alone as a sentence; coordination simply yokes them together as equals. A useful diagnostic is that coordinated clauses cannot normally be reordered without changing the meaning, and the coordinator sits between them rather than being movable to the front.
English has seven coordinating conjunctions, conventionally remembered by the mnemonic FANBOYS, each signalling a particular relation between the equal units it joins:
Because coordination is rank-preserving, it can operate at several levels of structure:
Note the link to sentence typology: a sentence with two or more coordinated independent clauses and no subordinate clause is a compound sentence; one with at least one subordinate clause is complex; one with both coordination and subordination is compound-complex. Keeping clause relation (coordination/subordination) distinct from sentence type (simple/compound/complex) is a mark of analytical control.
Correlative conjunctions are coordinators that work in matched pairs, binding equal elements with a tighter, more balanced structure than a single coordinator:
Correlatives are a hallmark of formal and rhetorical writing because the paired structure builds symmetry and emphasis. Not only...but also is an especially powerful persuasive device: it stages information as a rising accumulation, conceding one merit only to add a greater one, and is a favourite of speeches and editorials.
Coordination is not stylistically neutral; the way clauses are linked (or merely abutted) creates distinctive effects, and three classical terms let you name them precisely:
Subordination creates a hierarchical relationship in which one clause — the subordinate (dependent) clause — is grammatically embedded within or dependent upon another — the main (independent) clause. The defining property is that a subordinate clause cannot stand alone as a sentence: although she was tired leaves the reader waiting for the main clause that completes it. Subordinate clauses function as elements inside a larger structure, which is why subordination is sometimes discussed under the heading of embedding: the dependent clause is slotted into the matrix clause as an adverbial, a post-modifier or even a clause element such as subject or object.
Subordinating conjunctions introduce subordinate clauses and, crucially, name the logical relation between the dependent clause and the main clause. This explicit signalling of logic is one of the chief reasons subordination feels more "argued" than coordination:
Subordinate clauses are classified by the function they perform in the matrix clause. You should be able to recognise three broad types and to demonstrate the relation, not merely assert it:
A further distinction cuts across these types. Subordinate clauses may be finite (containing a tensed verb and, usually, a subordinator: because she was exhausted) or non-finite (built on an infinitive or participle, with the subordinator often absent: Exhausted by the journey, she slept; She paused to think). Non-finite subordinate clauses are highly compressed, packing subordinated information into very few words, and are a marker of mature, economical writing. The non-finite category itself subdivides usefully: the to-infinitive clause (a plan to reform the system), the -ing (present participle) clause (Walking home, she remembered the letter), and the -ed (past participle) clause (Defeated at the polls, the party regrouped). Because these clauses omit both subordinator and, usually, an overt subject, they are syntactically economical but can be ambiguous as to who performs the action — a feature producers can exploit, and a source of the unintentional "dangling participle" (Driving to work, the deer ran out, which absurdly implies the deer was driving).
Because relative clauses are so frequently misanalysed, they repay a closer look. The relative clause is introduced by a relative pronoun whose choice carries grammatical and stylistic information. Who and whom mark a human (or personified) antecedent, with whom reserved — in careful, formal usage — for the object or prepositional-complement function (the candidate whom we appointed, the colleague to whom I spoke); which marks a non-human antecedent; that is neutral as to humanness but is restricted to restrictive (defining) clauses and cannot introduce a non-restrictive one (my car, which is red, not *my car, that is red). Whose serves as the relative genitive for any antecedent (the author whose book won). Two further options matter for analysis. The zero relative omits the relative pronoun altogether when it is the object of its clause (the book [that] I read, the man [whom] she married), a compression characteristic of informal and spoken registers — its presence or absence is a quiet but reliable marker of formality. And the sentential (or connective) relative uses which to refer not to a single noun but to a whole preceding clause (She resigned, which surprised everyone), a device for commenting on an entire proposition.
The restrictive/non-restrictive distinction, signalled in writing by the presence or absence of commas (and in speech by intonation), is a genuine difference of meaning, not mere punctuation etiquette. A restrictive clause narrows the reference of its antecedent, picking out a subset (The students who had revised passed — only those students); a non-restrictive clause adds parenthetical, removable information about an already-identified referent (The students, who had revised, passed — all of them, and incidentally they had revised). For analysis the consequences are sharp: a writer who frames information restrictively is defining and limiting; one who frames it non-restrictively is commenting and elaborating, and the choice can subtly include or exclude, qualify or assert. Mistaking one for the other — or treating the comma as decorative — misreads the proposition the producer has actually built.
Stepping back from individual conjunctions, two terms let you characterise the overall syntactic style of a whole text:
Key Definition: Parataxis is a syntactic style built from coordinated or juxtaposed clauses of equal rank, creating a flat, additive structure; hypotaxis is a style built from subordination and embedding, creating a hierarchical, layered structure. Characterising a text as broadly paratactic or hypotactic — and then examining where it departs from its dominant mode — is one of the most powerful and portable tools in stylistic analysis.
The contrast is easiest to feel when the same content is rendered both ways:
The paratactic version is direct and stark, leaving the reader to infer the causal links between bald, equally weighted statements; its plainness can read as either childlike or deliberately hard-boiled. The hypotactic version spells out every connection — cause (because), consequence (which meant that), concession (although) — and fuses the events into a single, controlled, subordinating sentence. Neither is "better"; the analytical task is to name the style and argue its effect for the genre and purpose at hand.
Skilled writers rarely commit to one mode throughout. The richest effects often come from varying the balance of coordination and subordination:
To analyse clause combining rigorously, proceed in four moves. (1) Characterise the dominant style of the passage — broadly paratactic or hypotactic — as your baseline. (2) Identify the specific mechanism at the point of interest: is this coordination (and of what kind — polysyndetic, asyndetic, correlative?) or subordination (and what type of subordinate clause — adverbial, relative, nominal; finite or non-finite?)? (3) Analyse the effect, paying special attention to what is foregrounded in main clauses and backgrounded in subordinate ones, and to the pace and logic the structure creates. (4) Connect to context — register, audience, purpose, genre and mode — where AO3 marks live. Resist the twin temptations of merely counting conjunctions and of asserting that a sentence is "complex" without saying which clauses are subordinated to what effect.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.