The most striking difference between monosyndetic and asyndetic coordinate structures concerns their syntactic distribution: while the monosyndetic structures in (78) function as the subject of the clause, the asyndetic structures in (79) are contrastive, °left-dislocated phrases. This is no coincidence, as can be seen from the fact that the primeless examples in (80) are unacceptable; asyndetic coordinate structures simply cannot be used as clausal constituents in colloquial speech. However, it is not the case that asyndetic and monosyndetic constructions are in complementary distribution; the primed examples in (80) show that the asyndetic structures in (79) can easily be replaced by their monosyndetic counterparts. We conclude that monosyndetic coordinate structures have a wider distribution than their asyndetic counterparts.

Note in passing that the primeless examples in (80) are acceptable if the coordinate structures as a whole are followed by an intonation break; this is not relevant here, since these examples should then be analyzed as topic-drop constructions with left dislocation, i.e. as constructions with a phonetically empty but syntactically present subject; cf. Section V11.2.2 for a discussion of topic drop. The examples in (81) show that asyndetic coordinate structures cannot occur as a subpart of clausal constituents either. This means that monosyndetic and asyndetic coordinate structures differ in that the latter cannot be embedded in larger syntactic structures (clauses and other phrases).

The above discussion strongly suggests that asyndetic coordinate structures must be main-clause external in the sense of Chapter 37. This correctly predicts that asyndetic coordinate structures can be used in both left-dislocated and right-dislocated positions. That has already been shown for contrastive left-dislocation constructions in (79), and is further illustrated in the (a)-examples in (82) by the hanging-topic constructions with a resumptive subject pronoun in non-initial position of the main clause. The (b)-examples show that asyndetic coordinate structures are also correctly predicted to be able to occur in right-dislocated position: we give these examples as embedded clauses to show that the coordinate structures follow the finite verb in clause-final position, i.e. in a position that cannot be occupied by nominal arguments of the clause. Example (82c) is added to show that asyndetic coordinate structures can also be used as appositions (in parenthetical position); cf. Section N16.1.3.

Note that there are (seemingly) asyndetic coordinate structures that can occur in the right periphery of the clause such as Heeft iemand nog vragen, opmerkingen?Does anyone have any questions or comments? We will not digress here into this potential problem for our claim that asyndetic coordinate structures must be in a main-clause external position; we will return to it in subsection C.

We have seen above that monosyndetic coordinate structures have a wider syntactic distribution than asyndetic coordinate structures in that the latter are always main-clause external. It is worth noting that the two types induce slightly different readings when they occur in the same position: asyndetic coordinate structures are open-ended in the sense that they can function as incomplete enumerations, which is also evident from the fact that they are often pronounced with a somewhat wavering intonation. This effect is even clearer in (83a), where the phrase noem maar op!you name it! emphasizes the open-endedness of the enumeration. Monosyndetic coordinate structures, on the other hand, are usually exhaustive, which is why the use of the phrase noem maar op! in (83b) is not felicitous.

This enumerative use is also common with asyndetically coordinated clauses, as shown in (84), where the last three clauses form a (possibly incomplete) list of reasons for assuming that Jan was ill.

Finally, note that the generalization that asyndetic coordinate structures do not occur as clausal constituents makes it easy to distinguish such structures from noun phrases with a nominal appositional phrase of the type discussed in Section N16.1.3, such as Marie, onze burgemeester in (85a). The two noun phrases constituting the subject in this example also differ from coordinands in asyndetic (as well as other) coordinate structures in that they do not refer independently: the second noun phrase instead specifies more precisely the entity referred to by the proper name. A foolproof test to distinguish the two cases is to insert the coordinator enand before the second noun phrase. This is possible in asyndetic coordinate structures without any significant syntactic or semantic effect. However, it eliminates the appositional structure and replaces it by a coordinate one, which is reflected both syntactically and semantically: the appositional structure Marie, onze burgemeester in (85a) refers to a single person and triggers singular subject-verb agreement, while the coordinate structure Marie en onze burgemeester in (85b) refers to two different persons and triggers plural agreement.

Subsection A has argued that asyndetic coordinate structures have a more restricted distribution than their monosyndetic counterparts. They occur only main-clause externally, i.e. they cannot be used as (parts of) clausal constituents. The claim that asyndetic coordinate structures are main-clause external is not unproblematic. First, such structures can easily be found as clausal constituents in more elevated or literary style (e.g. for metrical or stylistic reasons), which is of course not sufficient to conclude that this option is also part of the core syntax. Second, there are also a number of potential counterexamples that can easily be found in colloquial speech. The following subsections discuss some cases of the second type.

Asyndetic coordinate structures can usually be replaced by monosyndetic ones without any significant effect on the semantic interpretation. In the prototypical case asyndetic coordinate structures are purely conjunctive, as indicated by the fact that they can almost always be replaced by syndetic ones with the coordinator enand. However, if the asyndetically linked coordinands are sentential, they can also be contrastive, and in such cases the coordinator maar can also be used. Some examples, adapted from Haeseryn et al. (1997:1522), are given in (98).

In the interrogative constructions in (99), also inspired by Haeseryn et al. (1997:1522), the relation between the asyndetically linked clauses is disjunctive nature, as indicated by the fact that the coordinator ofor can be added. Note that the addition of of in (99b) has an interpretive effect similar to that noted above for the addition of en: the asyndetic coordinate structures are open-ended in the sense that they leave more options open, whereas the coordinate structures with of present the addressee with exclusive binary choices (unless the intonation indicates that the sentence is open-ended).

Note that the intonation patterns of the two forms in (99) are also different: in the asyndetic cases, the two interrogative coordinands are pronounced with their own question contours, whereas in the syndetic cases we are dealing with a single question contour: compare Ga je mee? Blijf je thuis? and Ga je mee of blijf je thuis?, where the question mark indicates the rise in tone at the end of the utterance typical of questions. Note that the examples in (100) are probably disjunctions of reduced questions, i.e. [[Kom je vandaag] of/Ø [kom je morgen]]?; cf. Section V5.1.5 on fragment clauses.

Ellipsis may also provide a solution to the problem mentioned in Subsection A that examples such as (101a) are fully acceptable. We cannot analyze the two noun phrases as the coordinands of an asyndetic coordinate structure, as in (101b), because this is incompatible with our earlier conclusion that asyndetic coordinate structures cannot be used as clausal constituents (here: direct object). However, we can explain the acceptability of (101a) by assuming that we are dealing with a sentential coordinate structure, with a fragment (i.e. reduced) clause as the second coordinand. This analysis seems to be supported by the fact that (101a) can be comfortably pronounced with a single question contour when ofor is present, but not when it is absent: compare Heeft iemand nog vragen of opmerkingen? with Heeft iemand nog vragen? Opmerkingen? where the question marks again indicate the typical rise in tone at the end of the utterance.