Introduction

Sissala has three different forms of ‘and’, whose use is syntactically conditioned: ká is used to conjoin Ss, a is used to conjoin VPs, and rí, or arí, is used elsewhere. The different co-ordination constructions also differ in their pragmatic effects: for example, sentential co-ordination with ká might be analysed as suggesting that the event described in the second conjunct was unexpected, whereas non-sentential co-ordinations carry connotations of stereotypicality. The question I shall consider in this chapter is how these pragmatic differences can be explained.

In principle, such differences in pragmatic effect might be traced to any of three sources. First, the various co-ordinating conjunctions might differ in their truth-conditional meaning: use of ká, for example, might entail that the event described in the second conjunct was unexpected. Second, the co-ordinating conjunctions might have a common truthconditional meaning but differ in their non-truth-conditional meaning: ká, for example, might carry a constraint on relevance (as discussed in chapter 4), specialising it for use in contexts in which an element of unexpectedness was presupposed. Third, the pragmatic differences among conjoined structures might arise not from the lexical meanings of the co-ordinating conjunctions, but from syntactic factors. This is the idea I shall pursue.

My claim will be that where the speaker has a choice between the co-ordination of non-verbal constituents (NVCs), VP co-ordination and S co-ordination; the form he chooses will follow from considerations of relevance. Since S co-ordination requires more linguistic processing effort, it will only be chosen to achieve some extra effect; i.e. some effect that could not have been achieved by the less costly NVC or VP co-ordination.