We start with a discussion of elements in an utterance that can be assumed to be external to the main clause in the technical sense. The clearest cases are those elements that precede the main-clause initial position like discourse particles, vocatives and left-dislocated elements.

Main-clause external elements at the right edge of the utterance are more difficult to identify; apart from clear cases like discourse particles and vocatives, we come across e.g. right-dislocated elements and afterthoughts, which often look very similar to extraposed phrases (cf. Chapter V12).

Although structures resulting from coordination prototypically involve a single coordinator such as enand or ofor, it cannot be said that such coordinators select certain internal or external arguments. It implies that coordinate structures differ from other syntactic structures in that they are not (extended) projections of an argument-taking lexical head. Instead, coordinators typically combine two or more similar phrases (called coordinands) into a larger phrase of the same kind. Some illustrations are given in (4) with the coordinator enand: example (4a) involves coordination of two main clauses and (4b&c) coordination of two nominal phrases. Section 38.1 begins by discussing some more general properties of coordinate structures. Sections 38.2 to 38.4 discuss in detail the different types of coordinate structures and their constituent parts, i.e. coordinators and their coordinands.

Clausal coordinate structures are prone to reduction; the examples in (5) show that identical elements in the coordinands tend to be left unpronounced, which is indicated by strikethrough. We will focus on two main types of ellipsis. Example (5a) is a case of backward conjunction reduction: right-peripheral material in the left clausal coordinand is usually left unpronounced to the extent that it is identical to that of the right coordinand. Example (5b) is a case of gapping: the right clausal coordinand of the coordination is reduced by non-pronunciation of (at least) the finite verb.

The literature also discusses cases such as (6a) of so-called forward conjunction reduction, with ellipsis of left-peripheral material in the second coordinand. However, we will argue that such an ellipsis process does not exist (which we have indicated here with an asterisk), and propose an alternative analysis involving the coordination of smaller verbal projections (which we will call VP for convenience).

Although coordinate structures are usually relatively easy to recognize, Chapter 39 concludes with a number of cases which are sometimes claimed to exhibit some but not all of the properties of coordination. The forms discussed are alsas and danthan in comparative constructions, behalveexcept/besides, in plaats vaninstead of and laat staanlet alone. We will argue that we are not dealing here with borderline cases of coordination but with run-of-the-mill subordination; the claim that these forms exhibit borderline behavior and should therefore be analyzed as coordinator-like elements is mainly due to the misconception that co-called gapping is only possible in coordinate structures.