“Agus: Dè th' ann?

Thoughts on Subordination and Coordination in Scottish Gaelic”

Presented at the 3rd Conference of Gaelic Linguistics
Edinburgh, April 1999

1 Introduction
From a standard English perspective, the word agus (is, a's, 's) in Gaelic, which so neatly
corresponds to and in most situations, takes some curious detours in its syntactic
distribution and semantic function. One of these is its ability to introduce non-finite clauses
in sentences such as the following:

(1.1) Thachair an Camshronach rium 's mi a' falbh dhan Àird.

Happened the Cameron man to me and me departing to the Àird.
'The Cameron man happened upon me while I was going to the Àird.'

(1.2) Thàinig Iain 's an deoch air.

Came Ian and the drink on him.
'John came drunk'/ 'John came and he was drunk.'

(1.3) Chunnaic mi an-dè i 's i ag obair aig an arbhar.

Saw me yesterday her and her working at the corn.
'I saw her yesterday when/ while she was working on the corn.'

Previous treatments of this phenomenon (Boyle 1973; Ó Siadhail 1984) have characterised
it as a form of subordination. However, as Mathieson and Thompson (1988) caution, the
term 'subordination' is rarely operationally defined in the literature and frequently employed
in a vague or inconsistent manner. Boyle and Ó Siadhail do not offer definitions of the
term in their papers, thus one cannot be sure of the rationale behind their use of it. Indeed,
if we consider a clear instance of subordination in Gaelic, adverbial clauses headed by
nuair, we find significant differences in the form and distribution of the non-matrix clauses
involved versus those headed by agus:

(1.4a) Is ann nuair a bha mi a' falbh dhan Àird a thachair an

COP FOC when REL be-PST me going to the Àird REL happen-PST the
Camshronach rium.
Cameron man to me.
'It was when I was going to the Àird that the Cameron man happened upon me.'

(1.4b) *Is ann agus mi a' falbh dhan Àird a thachair an Camshronach rium.

(1.5a) Nuair a bha mi a' falbh dhan Àird, thachair an Camshronach rium.
'When I was going to the Àird, the Cameron man happened upon me.'

(1.5b) ?Agus mi a' falbh dhan Àird, thachair an Camshronach rium.

'And me going to the Àird, the Cameron man happened upon me.'
(1.5c) ?Agus an deoch air, thàinig Iain.
'And the drink on him, John came.'

1
Examples (1.4a) and (1.4b) are instances of clefting while those in (1.5) are examples of
preposing, both part and parcel of the flexibility of subordinate/ adverbial syntagms in
Scottish Gaelic. I have used the ? symbol before the relevant sentences in (1.5) in
deference to Boyle's article, which maintains that preposing is possible in sentences of this
type in Irish. However, there are clearly pragmatic issues at stake here, to which I will
return later. For the moment, I would like to take the position expressed by my Scottish
Gaelic informants, that these sentences are actually ungrammatical.

If this is an instance of subordination, it will certainly need further specification in the

grammar, a possibly uneconomical venture. It is clearly not coordinate in the traditional
sense as it would be unable to stand alone as an independent utterance. But, it shares some
of the qualities of coordinate clauses, such as the inability to be preposed or fronted in
clefted expressions, not to mention the presence of a conjunction. So, how is one to
characterise its grammatical status? The remainder of this paper will attempt to answer this
question, drawing on typological evidence and some insights from Role and Reference
Grammar (RRG).

2 Some comparative data and new terminology

It will be of help to consider parallel situations in other languages, where the distinction
between subordination and coordination is often blurred. In Kewa, a language of Papau
New Guinea, one can set up a minimal triple between subordination, coordination, and
another to-be-specified nexus type:

(Examples from Franklin 1971 cited in Van Valin and LaPolla 1997, p. 450)

2.1 a. Nipú ípu-la pare ní paala na-pía

3sg come-3sgPRES but 1sg afraid NEG-be.1sgPRES
'He is coming, but I am not afraid.'

b. (Ní) Épo lá-ri épa-wa.

1sg whistle say-SIM.SP come-1sgPAST
'I whistled while I came.' or 'I came whistling.'

c. (Ní) Épo lá-lo-pulu irikai épa-lia

1sg whistle say-1sgPRES-CAUSAL dog come-3sgFUT
'Because I am whistling, the dog will come.'

As said in Van Valin & LaPolla:

The construction in (a) is a coordinate construction; each clause can be an

independent utterance, and they are joined by a conjunction. The one in (c) is a
subordinate construction; while the first clause cannot stand alone as an
independent utterance, it carries agreement and tense. The construction in (b)
fits neither category exactly; the first clause cannot stand on its own but is not
marked for agreement and tense as in the subordinate construction. (p. 450)

2
Example (b) is an instance of what is called a switch-reference expression. Looking at the
verbal morphology, one sees the suffix rí which is glossed as 'simultaneous action (SIM),
same pivot (SP)'. Switch-reference languages keep track of participants by stating, on a
verb's morphology, whether or not a verb's main participant, as it were, is the same as the
one of the previous verb. What is of concern to us here is: (1) this marking is in
complementary distribution to the marking of tense—it occurs in the slot where tense
would normally be assigned; and (2) the tense (and illocutionary force) of a verb with
switch-reference marking is specified by the matrix verb. Here we have a dependency not
on a structural basis, but—as defined in RRG—an operational one, operators being such
things as mood, tense, aspect, and negation. Constructions such as these, which may share
both coordinate and subordinate features but are operationally dependent, are instances of
what Olson (1981, cited in Foley & Van Valin 1984) termed cosubordination.

In Boyle (1973), the agus-headed non-matrix clause is said to have the verb 'to be' (Ir. a
bheith/ ScG a bhith) deleted from its surface structure. Ó Siadhail similarly states that there
is a 'deletion of tá from the underlying coordinate which is, in a sense, superfluous as the
tense is implied by the preceding phrase' (p. 126). However, I think the main point is that
tense and illocutionary force are unspecified in clauses of this type. Tense and illocutionary
force in Gaelic are carried on the clause-initial verb, the position assumed by agus.
Because the non-finite clause is obligatorily dependent on matrix clause for tense and
illocutionary force, this is, like the switch-reference expression, an example of
cosubordination. Finally, there are two further similarities to switch-reference expressions:
(1) They are not able to move to a detached position (such as pre- or postposing); and (2)
rather than being modifiers of the matrix clause, they are seen as being added-on in
sequence. In narrative, especially, one is able to find fairly long runs of non-finite agus-
headed clauses:

(2.2) Bha Ùisdean a' Bhaile Sear... a's a' Bhaile Sear agus am Baile Sear aige uileag ach
na bh' aig dusan croiteir agus e anabarrach cothromach agus e anabarrach mi-
fhàbharach dha na croiteirean.

...bha iad ann a-shin a's a' mhòintich agus an crodh aca agus iad... teine mòr aca
agus iad air biadh a ghabhail a's a' bheinn, agus iad a'...

(examples from a collection of oral narrative taken down by Angus John

MacDonald, unpublished MSS.)

If we take the position that these agus-headed clauses are typified by unspecified tense and
illocutionary force, due to the occurrence of agus in the place of the marker upon which
these are usually coded, we are able to readily account for additional data: (1) negation, (2)
impersonal forms; (3) localised temporality; and (4) copula structures. Consider the
following:

2.3 Bha iad a' rànaich 's a' rànaich 's gun fhios aca cà' 'n robh
were they crying and crying and without knowledge at them where were
iad.
they.
 'They were crying and crying without knowing where they were.'

2.4 Thàinig sinn chun an taighe agus-ar ag obair aig an arbhar.

came we to the house and IMP working at the corn. (IMP=impersonal)
'We came to the house and there was working at the corn.'

2.5 Chì thu dealbh de Mhòraig an-seo 's i aig a' chladach an-dè.
see you picture of Morag here and her at the beach yesterday.
'You see a picture of Morag here when she was at the beach yesterday.'

2.6 Bha boireannach brèagha cuide ris 's esan an duine as gràinde air an
was woman beautiful with him and him the man most ugly on the
t-saoghal.
world.
'There was a beautiful woman with him and him the ugliest man in the world.'

Example 2.2 demonstrates the only option for negation in this construction as it cannot
occur, as it normally would at the clausal level, on a finite verb (cf., ...agus cha robh fhios
aca...). In example 2.3, we see a form that will seem out of place to many readers, the
morpheme -ar which I, for one, thought was a bound morpheme and always confined to
finite verbs. However its appearance is not inexplicable; agus is assuming the position
normally reserved for verbal elements and -ar is just tagged at the end, acting like a normal
free pronoun. The grammaticality of (2.4) is a consequence of the unspecification of tense
in the agus-headed clause; the temporal adverb an-dè, being more local than the tense
specification of the matrix clause, is able to override it by virtue of its proximity. And
finally, in (2.6), because copular verbs occur in the first position, which is unavailable, one
is able to obtain a copular interpretation if the arguments present are consistent with
copular form. (Interestingly, it seems that tense is not implicated in the copular clause. In
other words, the tense of the matrix clause is not necessary for the successful parsing of the
second.) Thus, by simply stating that the elements carried by finite verbs are left
unspecified in agus-headed non-finite clauses, one is able to account for a wide-array of
data.

To return to the topic of nexus, we are left with a three-way division. The main difference
between clausal cosubordination and subordination is the obligatory operator dependence
evinced in cosubordination. In subordination, which can manifest as either embedding
(e.g., acting as an nominalised argument of a predicate) or modification, operator
dependence is not significant. This tertiary division can be represented as follows (from
Van Valin & LaPolla 1997, p. 454):

4
 NEXUS

Dependent Independent
COORDINATION
Structural Operator
dependence dependence
SUBORDINATION COSUBORDINATION

3 Hierarchical differences between adverbial subordination and agus-headed

non-finite clauses
We have shown that there are some distributional differences between unequivocal
subordinate clauses and those headed by agus. This will become more clear when we
consider their relative status within the logical structure of the clause.

Role and Reference Grammar developed out of an attempt to account for, in the first
instance, languages such as Lakhota, Dyirbal, and Kewa rather than the range of Indo-
European languages currently dominating most linguistic theories. There isn't space
enough here to provide a full introduction, but, in order to understand the tree diagrams, we
will cover the basics of clause structure within this paradigm.

There are three major syntactic units to consider: the core, the nucleus, and the periphery.
The core consists of the semantic predicate plus its argument, the nucleus is equivalent to
the semantic predicate, and the periphery is where the non-arguments get consigned to.
The clause is formed by the combination of the core and its periphery. This schema is able
to account for universal distinctions between predicating elements and non-predicating
elements on the one hand and arguments and adjuncts on the other (Van Valin & LaPolla
1997). It can be represented graphically as follows:

CLAUSE
CORE PERIPHERY

Dh' ith Iain an t-aran a's an leabhar-lann

Nucleus Arguments
Figure 1.1 The Layered Structure of the Clause
Respectively, it can be represented in a tree-diagram:

SENTENCE

CLAUSE

CORE PERIPHERY

NUC ARG ARG

PRED

V NP NP PP

Dh' ith Iain an t-aran a's an leabhar-

lann

Figure 1.2 Tree Diagram of the LSC: constituent projection

6
As mentioned earlier, RRG posits a group of operators such as tense, illocutionary force,
aspect, modality, and negation. Different operators modify different levels of the clause, so
there will be nuclear operators, core operators, and clausal operators. We are discussing
clausal juncture and only two of the clausal operators will be invoked in our
representations: tense and illocutionary force. Here is the previous tree diagram with its
operator projection inserted:

SENTENCE

CLAUSE

CORE PERIPHERY

NUC ARG ARG

PRED

V NP NP PP

Dh' ith Iain an t-aran a's an leabhar-

lann

NUC NUC Nucleus

PRED Predicate
CORE ARG Argument
TNS Tense
CLAUSE TNS IF Illocutionary
Force
CLAUSE IF

SENTENCE

Figure 1.3 The LSC with constituent and operator projections

Now, if we consider some data involving both an adverbial adjunct and a cosubordinate
clause, we will be able to determine their relative positions in the LSC.

(3.1) a. Bha iad ann nuair a chaidh mi seachad 's teine mòr aca cuideachd.
was they in it when went mi past and fire big at them also.
'They were there when I went by, and they had a big fire too.'

b. ?Bha iad ann 's teine mòr aca cuideachd nuair a chaidh mi seachad.
'They were there and they had a big fire too when I went by.'
(3.2) a. Chunnaic mi an-dè i 's i ag obair aig an arbhar.
saw me yesterday her and her working at the corn.
'I saw her yesterday while/ when she was working at the corn.'

b. ?Chunnaic mi i 's i ag obair aig an arbhar an-dè.

'I saw her while/when she was working at the corn yesterday.'

The problem with (3.1b) and (3.2b) isn't so much that they are categorically ungrammatical,
but that they have a different meaning, or at least, emphasis from the (a) examples. If one
is intending for the adverbial adjunct to modify the matrix clause, it must occur adjacent to
it. If one puts it behind the cosubordinate clause, then it is that clause that gets modified.
In 3.1, it is the difference between 'They were there when I went by and they had a big fire'
or 'There were there and they had a big fire when I went by', implying that they might not
have had one at another time. The difference in meaning is slighter in 3.2b, but it is
dispreferred to 3.2a and, in the words of one informant, is a mistake common to young
children and learners of Gaelic. If we provide a tree diagram, this difference will become
clear.
SENTENCE

CLAUSE

CLAUSE CONJ CLAUSE

CORE PERIPHERY CORE

NUC ARG ARG ARG NUC ARG

PRED PRED

V PRO ADV PRO PRO V PP

Chunnaic mi an-dè i 's i ag obair aig an arbhar.

V V

NUC NUC

CORE TEMP CORE

CLAUSE CLAUSE

CLAUSE
TNS
CLAUSE
IF
SENTENCE

Figure 1.4: Representation of example 3.2a

8
Here is the representation of (3.2b):
SENTENCE

CLAUSE

CLAUSE CONJ CLAUSE

CORE CORE PERIPHERY

NUC ARG ARG ARG NUC ARG

PRED PRED

V PRO PRO PRO V PP ADV

Chunnaic mi i 's i ag obair aig an arbhar an-dè.

V V

NUC NUC

CORE CORE TEMP

CLAUSE CLAUSE

TNS CLAUSE
IF CLAUSE

SENTENCE

Figure 1.5: Representation of example 3.2b

So, if we compare figures 3.4 and 3.5, we see the crucial differences, represented in both
the constituent and operator projections. Comparing the constituent projections, we see that
when an-dè is adjacent to the matrix clause it modifies that clause's core. But, when it falls
after the cosubordinate clause, it instead becomes its periphery rather than that of the matrix
clause. Looking at the operator projections now, we see an echoes of the same distinction;
temporality is a core operator and is shown in this role in each operator projection. If we
inserted the subordinate clauses in (3.1) in the place of an-dè, we would obtain the same
tree diagrams.
So, non-finite clauses headed by agus are distinguished from adverbial subordinate clauses
in that they are not peripheral modifiers and they are joined with it at the clausal, rather
than the core level. One more example will make this difference even more clear:

(3.3) a. Chunnaic mi i air a' bhruaich 's i tilgeil ball.

'I saw her and her on the bank throwing a ball'
b. Chunnaic mi i 's i tilgeil ball air a' bhruaich.
'I saw her and her throwing a ball onto the bank'
c. Chunnaic mi i 's i tilgeil ball, air a' bhruaich.
'I saw her and her throwing a ball, on/ onto the bank.'

In (3.3a) air a' bhruaich is a locative whereas in (3.3b) it is a directional. How it is

interpreted depends on which clause it follows. In (3.3c), the interpretation is vague,
because the phrase is in a right detached position and consequentially modifies the sentence
as a whole. In order to make sentences like Chunnaic mi i 's i ag obair aig an arbhar an-dè
more acceptable, one could put a pause after the penultimate constituent, causing the
adjunct to modify the sentence as a whole, rather than just the cosubordinate clause.

4 Semantic and pragmatic issues

At this point, I would like to return to an issue that was raised at the beginning of the paper:
the inability of agus-headed cosubordinate clauses to be preposed or clefted. Both Boyle
(1973) and Ó Siadhail cite examples where agus is sentence-initial. I am leaving open the
possibility that there are some differences between Irish and Scottish Gaelic in this potential
(not to mention between speech and writing) but, to borrow a term from Wallace Chafe
(1987), I sincerely doubt that these clauses are able to act as guideposts to new discourse in
the way that fronted adverbial syntagms are. Indeed, the whole notion of the sentence as a
viable unit of syntactic analysis has been questioned by linguists such as Jim Miller (Miller
and Weinert 1998). It is not clear if the sentence initial examples cited by Boyle are from
naturally-occurring data, but the one in Ó Siadhail (see example 4.1b below), although
evincing agus with a capital 'A' is clearly a continuation, an 'adding on in sequence', of
previous discourse. Anyone who has done transcription of naturally-occurring speech
knows that the placement of full-stops is an extremely problematic task. So, abandoning
the sentence for moment, does this type of construction occur discourse-initial? That is,
could one begin a conversation or initiate a topic-switch with it? My Scottish Gaelic
informants concur in saying that this is not an option. As Boyle (1973) mentions, these
constructions are presupposed; it is this giveness that disables them as distributionally
flexible syntagms. As a whole unit, they cannot be focused and they cannot be questioned:

Imaginary dialogue
(4.1) <1> Thachair an Camhsronach rium agus mi a' falbh dhan Àird.
<2> Cuine thachair an Camshronach riut?
<1> *Agus mi a' falbh dhan Àird.
Nuair a bha mi a' falbh dhan Àird. (Italics added for emphasis)

Notice that in order to answer <2>'s question, <1> would have to resort to a temporal
interpretation using an adverbial clause. There is no explicit coding of cotemporality in the
initial utterance; it is merely an obligatory condition of the semantics involved. Because in

10
Gaelic, the concept of cotemporality is not lexicalised as it is in English—there is no word
corresponding to English while—<1> cannot answer <2>'s question in a direct fashion.

So, mentioning semantics, how best should we conceptualise the machinery of these
constructions? I think the answer is much simpler than the elaborate taxonomy offered in Ó
Siadhail (1984): agus, even when it heads a non-finite clause, is still a conjunction. It is
crucial to differentiate between conjunction, which is a formal construction type, and
coordination, which is an abstract linkage relation wherein there is independence and
equivalence between the units of the juncture (Van Valin & LaPolla 1997). Conjunction
can be either coordinate or cosubordination. As Lakoff (1984) comments "The presence of
'and' is a virtual red flag, signalling to the hearer, 'these ideas are related somehow, guess
how" (p. 487). This is the bare-bones semantics involved in agus-cosubordination. I think
that Ó Siadhail's classification—distinguishing between temporal and non-temporal,
functional equivalents of relative clauses, concessions, and so on—is useful from a
functional, comparative standpoint with English, but is missing the forest for the trees on a
descriptive level. The fact is, the distinctions that he makes are a product of world
knowledge, or, in Lakoff's terms, the 'guessing how'; they are still all instances of
conjunction.

(4.2) A selection of Ó Siadhail's categories with examples (1984, p. 126-128):

Temporal
a. Nach minic a bhuail fonn mé, agus mé faoi bhrothall te tirim na gréine ar na pampas ó
dheas... How often during the cloudless dog days of the Pampas had I yearned for...
(translations are from Ó Siadhail)

Non-temporal: Attendant circumstances

b. Agus isteach liom de léim thar an gclaidhe agus an rothar fágtha i leath-taobh an
bhóthair taobh amuigh. ...leaving my wheel on the roadside and leaping over the hedge.

Equivalent of a relative clause

c. Píosa de chlár cearnógach péinne bhí mar mharc aice agus fáinne beag ina lár. The
target was a square piece of fine board; in the middle of which was a small ring.

Concessive
d. Bhí clann agus clann a cluine curth' i gcrí agus í féin beó fós. Her children and her
children's children were done for though she herself was still alive.

Causal

e. Bhí an lá chomh gearr sin is tú ag déanamh 'chuile bheaintáil. The day was so short
when (= since, seeing that) you were gallivanting around.