Conjunction, Junction What IS Your Function?
And that has been the question, since even before the peppy cartoon gave voice and face to our persnickety little grammatical inquiry back in 1973. The conjunction, just like most elements in a language, is multifaceted and is tired of being pigeonholed! The conjunction is not limited to the sole purpose of connecting elements within a sentence, and is perfectly capable of beginning a sentence on its own.
Most people who support the notion that starting a sentence with a conjunction is grammatically incorrect will argue that the nature of a conjunction is to join elements into a singular or connected train of thought within a sentence. Assuming that this is a correct (and the sole) function of a conjunction, it is argued that a conjunction can only fall between two words, clauses, or phrases and acts as a linguistic mortar to connect the two items. And since the conjunction is a binder of other units within a sentence, it therefore cannot begin a sentence because that would leave it connected to only one unit within the sentence. Since I was in primary school this is the doctrine that has been preached. In elementary, secondary, and occasionally even post-secondary education students are often told that to begin a sentence with a conjunction was grammatical heresy. After all, if we break the word “conjunction” down to its Latin root we arrive at conjunctio form the verb conjungere which means to add, to associate, or to unite (Mahoney), so how can a conjunction start a sentence? If it is at the beginning of a sentence, then there is nothing for our conjunction to conjunct, right? Wrong.
When one pulls out the ever-faithful eleventh edition of Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary and locates “conjunction” in this treasure trove of untapped (rather, largely ignored) knowledge, one finds that by definition, a conjunction is: “4: an uninflected linguistic form that joins together sentences, clauses, phrases, or words . . ." (p. 263). Right there in the very definition of what a conjunction is, this myth is debunked; “that joins together sentences . . ..” A conjunction can join sentences together? For that to happen, they must be made into a compound sentence, right? And it couldn't be that a conjunction could start a sentence all on its own. Nor should it! But, what about about his entire paragraph, almost all of the sentences start with conjunctions. Or are they?! Yet educators and parents throughout the English-speaking world continue to instruct generation after generation that this construction is incorrect by some non-existent standard. So, who's right? Even instructional manuals such as Alastair Fowler’s How to Write use conjunctions to start sentences (p. 151). In fact, this particular grammatical construct can be found in use as early as 1611, in the King James Version of the Holy Bible:
And it came to pass in those days that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world would be taxed. And this taxing . . .. And all went to be taxed . . .. And so it was . . .. And she brought forth . . .. And there were in the same country … (St. Luke 2:1-8)
Furthermore, conjunctions are not nearly this limited in their function. Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman enumerate several different purposes for conjunction words in their book The Grammar Book. “And” alone functions as a logical operator, meaning that “and” can be used to show the truth of both conjuncts within a sentence; an indicator of multiple meanings, meaning that “and” can be used to mark a coming list of attributes; as a signal that a speaker is continuing; and so on (p. 473-474). And that doesn’t even start on the meanings and uses of the conjunctions “but, so, yet” and “or.”
In fact, when one begins to delve into the wealth of books on American English usage and grammar, it is seemingly impossible to find any such entity that reinforces the idea that beginning a sentence with any conjunction is actually incorrect. There are some texts that explicitly discredit this grammatical fallacy, and some which do so simply by failing to uphold it in their content. H.W. Fowler contradicts this misconstruction: “B[ut]. he did not follow up his threats… B[ut]. on arriving in Bavaria… B[ut]. one thing had not changed…" (p. 61). In this instance Fowler is providing what he considers the most desired usage of the conjunction “but” in a given context, and that desired usage is as the first word in a sentence. So not by explicit statement, but by action and practice Fowler disproves this construct. Garner labels the delusion that starting a sentence with a conjunction is incorrect as “rank superstition" (p. 39) and "a gross canard" (p. 99). He goes on to reference several other writers and sources to debunk this myth outright, and some quotes to provide the evidence, including: Gowers, Follett, Copperud, the Harper Dictionary of Contemporary Usage, R.W. Burchfield, Kingsley Amis’s The King’s English, S. Baker, R.W. Pence, D.W. Emery, Lucile Vaughan Payne, Hairston, D. Alexander Fardon, E. Wilson, H.L. Mencken, Veblen, Bertrand Russell, Einstein, Vladimir Nabokov, James Agee, Susan Sontag, I.A. Richards, Randall Jarrell, John Simon, Safire, Allan Bloom, Christopher Ricks, and H. Birnbaum. Kingsley Amis asserts that it is “an empty superstition” and even suggests benefit from such usage as indicator of “the sort of thing that is to follow" (p. 14). Cuttis contends that not only is it acceptable to start a sentence with a conjunction, but that one “can start a sentence with any word you want, so long as the sentence hangs together as a complete statement" (p. 95). So now that it has been established that this grammar myth is indeed a myth, let us look at why it is a myth.
Reverting back to the definition of a conjunction as “4: an uninflected linguistic form that joins together sentences, clauses, phrases, or words …” (Merriam-Webster, p. 263) let us examine that function from a broader scope. For the sake of discussion we will say that the function of a conjunction is not simply to link words, phrases, and sentences, but to link idea units. Well doesn’t that just open up a whole new can of worms? Oh yes.
When human beings approach a selection of written word, do they ever do so devoid of any frame of reference other than that selection of written word? No. Every time we read something we are constantly pulling information from our own experiences, the knowledge we have gleaned from this world, and countless other sources. The portion of that entity that is particular to us is called our frame of reference, and the portion of that which is shared with the general public is called cultural literacy. And both of these come into play when we attempt to comprehend something. Now, having said that let us revert once again to conjunctions as links between idea units. The major argument against a conjunction starting a sentence is that is has nothing to conjoin what follows it to, right?
Well we have already established that conjunctions can operate as links between sentences, so that problem is solved, but what if the very first word of the first sentence on the first page of the first chapter of a book is “yet” or “but,” hmm? What then? If there is literally no text immediately preceding the sentence that begins with the conjunction, how can it function? Well, how about a title? That is exactly how it functioned in this very paper, with “and” beginning the first sentence of the paper, but linking it to the title of the paper. So supposing that the title of a book begins with a conjunction, what then? Can a title beginning with a conjunction serve to connect the title and what follows to a larger discourse? This opens up a much broader, philosophical question about when communication between author and reader is initiated, a question that shan’t be answered here. However, you get the point. A conjunction does not serve simply to link individual words, phrases, clauses and sentences, but entire idea units. Moreover, as was discussed earlier, conjunctions function not only as links between units, but as markers for several different literary devices such as lists, allegory, and so on; and also serve various linguistic functions from linking to measurement of truth and the like (Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, p. 473-474).
In summary, it is painfully obvious that the function of a conjunction is not simply linking phrases, clauses, sentences and words, but can be any one of a myriad of possibilities. Not the least of these possibilities is to serve as the genesis of a sentence. And there you have it, a brief look into what the actual function of a conjunction is. Yet, it is just that a brief look. So don’t go thinking this is all that a conjunction can do. But knowing what you now know, be prepared to elaborate to those who mindlessly sing along to… Conjunction junction, what’s your function . . ..
References
Amis, Kingsley. (1998). The king’s English, 1st ed. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
Celce-Murcia, Marianne, and Diane Larsen-Freeman. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s course. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.
Cuttis, Martin. (1995). The plain English guide. 1st ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press Inc.
Fowler, Alastair. (2006). How to write. 1st ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press Inc.
Fowler, H.W. (1926). A dictionary of modern English usage. 1st ed. London, UK: Oxford at the Clarendon Press.
Garner, Bryan A. (1998). A Dictionary of Modern American Usage. 1st ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press Inc.
Holy Bible, The. (1983). King James Version. New York, NY: American Bible Society.
Kevin, Mahoney. (2002). LATdict Latin Dictionary and Resources. Retrieved from: http://latin-dictionary.net/
Merriam-Webster. (2003). Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. 11th ed. Springfield, MA: Merriam Webster, Inc.