Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Cambridge Handbooks In Language And Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 The Comparative Syntactic Enterprise
- Part I Comparative Syntax: Theory, Methodology, and Data Collection
- Part II Comparative Syntax: Building Blocks and Combinatorial Properties
- 10 Words and Features
- 11 Pronouns
- 12 Functional Architecture of Nominal Phrases
- 13 Functional Architecture of Adjectival Phrases
- 14 Functional Architecture of Prepositional Phrases
- 15 Analyzing Tenselessness
- 16 Voice
- 17 Coordination
- 18 Clause Types
- Part III Comparative Syntax: Dependency Relations and Dependency Marking
- Part IV Comparative Syntax: Interfaces
- Index
- References
17 - Coordination
from Part II - Comparative Syntax: Building Blocks and Combinatorial Properties
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 January 2026
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Cambridge Handbooks In Language And Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 The Comparative Syntactic Enterprise
- Part I Comparative Syntax: Theory, Methodology, and Data Collection
- Part II Comparative Syntax: Building Blocks and Combinatorial Properties
- 10 Words and Features
- 11 Pronouns
- 12 Functional Architecture of Nominal Phrases
- 13 Functional Architecture of Adjectival Phrases
- 14 Functional Architecture of Prepositional Phrases
- 15 Analyzing Tenselessness
- 16 Voice
- 17 Coordination
- 18 Clause Types
- Part III Comparative Syntax: Dependency Relations and Dependency Marking
- Part IV Comparative Syntax: Interfaces
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter describes the syntactic structure and cross-linguistic variation of coordinate structures, with special attention to the nature of the coordinating conjunction, resolution rules for agreement with coordinate subjects, the opacity of coordinate structures, and signs of asymmetry within coordinate structures. The chapter also discusses the derivation of coordinate structures within generative grammar, and calls into question the commonly held view that coordinate structures are headed by the coordinating conjunction.
Keywords
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax , pp. 537 - 567Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2025
References
Benmamoun, E. 2000. The Feature Structure of Functional Categories: A Comparative Study of Arabic Dialects. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, K., and Berry, C.. 1999. A Description of Abun: A West-Papuan Language of Irian Jaya. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Beyer, S.V. 1992. The Classical Tibetan Language. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Bjorkman, B. M. 2013. A syntactic answer to a pragmatic puzzle: The case of asymmetric and. In Folli, R., Sevdali, C., and Truswell, R. (eds.), Syntax and Its Limits, 391–408. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackings, M., and Fabb, N.. 2003. A Grammar of Ma’di. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, C. (ed.). 2011. The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogal-Allbritten, E., and Weir, A.. 2017. Sentential and possibly subsentential modification: The ambiguity of Collins’ conjunctions. Proceedings of NELS 47: 89–102.Google Scholar
Bokamba, E. G. 1985. Verbal agreement as a noncyclic rule in Bantu. In Goyvaerts, D. L. (ed.), African Linguistics: Essays in Memory of M.W.K. Semikenke, 9–54. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Ž. 2019. On the Coordinate Structure Constraint and labeling. Proceedings of WCCFL 36: 71–80.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, H., and Corver, N.. 2019. Syntax of Dutch: Coordination and Ellipsis. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Carden, G., and Pesetsky, D. 1977. Double-verb constructions, markedness, and a fake co-ordination. Proceedings of CLS 13: 82–92.Google Scholar
Carlson, G. N. 1983. Marking constituents. In Heny, F. W. and Richards, B. (eds.), Linguistic Categories: Auxiliaries and Related Puzzles, vol. 1, 69–98. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrera Hernández, A. 2006. Gapping as a syntactic dependency. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 18: 241–267.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1982. The Generative Enterprise: A Discussion with Riny Huybregts and Henk van Riemsdijk. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2000. New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Colarusso, J. 1992. A Grammar of the Kabardian Language. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.Google Scholar
Collins, C. 1988a. Part 1: Conjunction Adverbs. Unpublished manuscript, MIT. www.dropbox.com/s/74r8kqz4fpye0ia/Collins%201988%20%28Conjunction%20Adverbs%29.pdf.Google Scholar
Collins, C. 1988b. Part 3: The Structure of CONJP. Unpublished manuscript, MIT. www.dropbox.com/s/74r8kqz4fpye0ia/Collins%201988%20%28Conjunction%20Adverbs%29.pdf.Google Scholar
Corbett, G, and Mithun, M. 1996. Associative forms in a typology of number systems. Journal of Linguistics 32: 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crazzolara, J. 1960. A Study of the Logbara (Ma’di) Language. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dayley, J. P. 1989. Tümpiza (Shoshone) Grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
De Vos, M. 2005. The Syntax of Pseudo-Coordination in English and Afrikaans. PhD dissertation, Leiden University.Google Scholar
De Vries, M. 2005. Coordination and syntactic hierarchy. Studia Linguistica 59: 83–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Vries, M. 2008. Asymmetric merge and parataxis. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 53: 355–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Vries, M., and Heringa, H.. 2008. Congruentie met nevengeschikte subjecten: de invloed van distributiviteit. Tabu 37: 3–18.Google Scholar
Degener, A. 1998. Die Sprache von Nisheygram im afghanischen Hindukusch. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Dik, S. 1968. Coordination: Its Implications for the Theory of General Linguistics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Dougherty, R. C. 1970. A grammar of coordinate conjoined structures I. Language 46: 850–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dougherty, R. C. 1971. A grammar of coordinate conjoined structures II. Language 47: 298–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driemel, I. 2016. The syntax of conjunct extraposition. Proceedings of ConSOLE 24: 63–87.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, K. 2012. Patterns of agreement with coordinate noun phrases in Hungarian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30: 1027–1060.Google Scholar
Erschler, D. 2012. Suspended affixation in Ossetic and the structure of the syntax–morphology interface. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 59: 153–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, G. 1981. Unbounded dependencies and coordinate structure. Linguistic Inquiry 12: 155–184.Google Scholar
Georgi, D. 2019. On the nature of ATB-movement: Insights from reflexes of movement. Proceedings of NELS 49: 291–303.Google Scholar
Georgi, D., and Amaechi, M.. 2020. Resumption and islandhood in Igbo. Proceedings of NELS 50: 261–274.Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1970. The resolution of gender conflicts in Bantu conjunction: When syntax and semantics clash. In Papers from the Sixth Regional Meeting Chicago Linguistic Society, 250–261. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Glass, A., and Hackett, D. 1970. Pitjantjatjara Grammar: A Tagmemic View of the Ngaanyatjara (Warburton Ranges) Dialect. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Gleitman, L. 1965. Coordinating conjunctions in English. Language 41: 260–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, J. 1985. A principled exception to the Coordinate Structure Constraint. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 21: 133–134.Google Scholar
Goodall, G. 1987. Parallel Structures in Syntax: Coordination, Causatives, and Restructuring. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grootveld, M. 1994. Parsing Coordination Generatively. PhD dissertation, Leiden University.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 2007. Coordination. In Shopen, T. (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. 2, 1–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hendriks, P. 2004. Either, both and neither in coordinate structures. In ter Meulen, A. and Abraham, W. (eds.), The Composition of Meaning: From Lexeme to Discourse, 115–138. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heringa, H., and de Vries, M.. 2008. Enkelvoudige congruentie bij nevenschikking met en: puzzels met betrekking tot massa’s en demonstratieven. Tabu 37: 19–38.Google Scholar
Höhle, T. N. 1989. Assumptions about asymmetric coordination in German. In Mascaró, J. and Nespor, M. (eds.), Grammar in Progress: GLOW Essays for Henk van Riemsdijk, 221–235. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, J. 1983. Plurality and conjunction. In ter Meulen, A. G. B. (ed.), Studies in Modeltheoretic Semantics, 63–83. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoekstra, J. 1997. The Syntax of Infinitives in Frisian. PhD dissertation, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1977. X′ Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jaspers, D. 2005. Operators in the Lexicon: On the Negative Logic of Natural Language. PhD dissertation, Leiden University.Google Scholar
Johannessen, J. B. 1993. Coordination: A Minimalist Approach. PhD dissertation, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Johannessen, J. B. 2005. The syntax of correlative adverbs. Lingua 115: 419–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, K. 2002. Restoring exotic coordination to normalcy. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 97–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Josefsson, G. 1991. Pseudocoordination: A VP + VP coordination. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 47: 130–156.Google Scholar
Kalin, L., and Weisser, P.. 2019. Asymmetric DOM in coordination: A problem for movement-based approaches. Linguistic Inquiry 50: 662–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R. S. 2019. Why are there no directionality parameters? In Questions of Syntax, 275–303. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kehler, A. 2002. Coherence, Reference, and the Theory of Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kimball, G. D. 1985. A Descriptive Grammar of Koasati. PhD dissertation, Tulane University, New Orleans.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1968. Tense and mood in Indo-European syntax. Foundations of Language 4: 30–57.Google Scholar
Kurki, K. 2022. We … with Anna: The inclusory plural pronominal construction in Finnish and Fenno-Swedish. Working Papers in Scandinavian Linguistics 107: 111–134.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., and Peters, S.. 1969. Phrasal conjunction and symmetric predicates. In Reibel, D. A. and Schane, S. A. (eds.), Modern Studies in English: Readings in Transformational Grammar, 113–142. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Lipták, A. 2003. Conjoined questions in Hungarian. In Boeckx, C. and Grohmann, K. K. (eds.), Multiple wh-fronting, 141–160. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipták, A. 2011. Strategies of wh-coordination. Linguistic Variation 11: 149–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorimor, H. 2007. Conjunctions and Grammatical Agreement. PhD dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Lødrup, H. 2002. The syntactic structures of Norwegian pseudocoordinations. Studia Linguistica 56: 121–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marušič, F., Nevins, A., and Saksida, A.. 2007. Last-conjunct agreement in Slovenian. In Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Toronto Meeting 2006, 210–227. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Matthews, S., and Yip, V. 1994. Cantonese: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Merchant, J. 2001. The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, R. 2005. Das Zay: deskriptive Grammatik einer Ostguragesprache (Athiosemitisch). Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag.Google Scholar
Mithun, M. 1988. The grammaticalization of coordination. In Haiman, J. and Thompson, S. A. (eds.), Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse, 331–359. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munn, A. 1992. A null operator analysis of ATB gaps. The Linguistic Review 9: 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munn, A. 1993. Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Coordinate Structures. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Newman, P. 2000. The Hausa Language: An Encyclopedic Reference Grammar. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Nida, E. A. 1949. Morphology: The Descriptive Analysis of Words. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Palancar, E. L. 2012. A typology of split conjunction. Linguistic Typology 16: 265–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partee, B. H., ter Meulen, A., and Wall, R. E.. 1990. Mathematical Methods in Linguistics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Priestly, T. M. S. 1993. Slovene. In Comrie, B. and Corbett, G. G. (eds.), The Slavonic Languages, 388–451. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Progovac, L. 1997. Slavic and the structure for coordination. In Lindseth, M. and Franks, S. (eds.), Proceedings of the 1996 Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics, 207–224. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Progovac, L. 2003. Structure for coordination. In Cheng, L. and Sybesma, R. (eds.), The Second Glot International State-of-the-Article Book: The Latest in Linguistics, 241–287. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Przepiórkowski, A. 2022. Coordination of unlike grammatical cases (and unlike categories). Language 98: 592–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pullum, G., and Zwicky, A.. 1986. Phonological resolution of syntactic feature conflict. Language 62: 751–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., and Svartvik, J.. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. 1970. Gapping and the order of constituents. In Bierwisch, M. and Heidolph, K. E. (eds.), Progress in Linguistics, 249–259. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Sadock, J. M. 1991. Autolexical Syntax: A Theory of Parallel Grammatical Representations. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sag, I. A., Gazdar, G., Wasow, T., and Weisler, S.. 1985. Coordination and how to distinguish categories. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 3: 117–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schein, B. 2017. “And”: Conjunction Reduction Redux. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmerling, S. 1972. Apparent counterexamples to the Coordinate Structure Constraint: A canonical conspiracy. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 2: 91–104.Google Scholar
Schmerling, S. 1975. Asymmetric conjunction and rules of conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3: Speech Acts, 211–231. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schmitt, V. 2021. Boolean and non-Boolean conjunction. In Gutzmann, D., Matthewson, L., Meier, C., Rullmann, H., and Zimmermann, T. E. (eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Semantics, ch. 111. New York: John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118788516.sem111.Google Scholar
Schwartz, L. 1988. Asymmetric feature distribution in pronominal coordinations. In Barlow, M. and Ferguson, C.A. (eds.), Agreement in Natural Language: Approaches, Theories and Descriptions, 237–249. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Siegel, M. E. A. 1987. Compositionality, case, and the scope of auxiliaries. Linguistics and Philosophy 10: 53–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stassen, L. 2000. And-languages and with-languages. Linguistic Typology 4: 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stassen, L. 2013. Noun phrase conjunction. In Dryer, M. and Haspelmath, M. (eds.), WALS Online (v2020.3), Ch. 63. http://wals.info/chapter/63.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, A., and Haddican, B.. 2004. Conjunction meets negation: A study in cross-linguistic variation. Journal of Semantics 21: 219–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, L. C., and Thompson, M. T.. 1992. The Thompson Language. University of Montana Occasional Papers 8.Google Scholar
Timyan, J. E. 1976. A Discourse-Based Grammar of Baule: The Kode Dialect. PhD dissertation, City University of New York.Google Scholar
Toyoshima, T. 1997. Derivational CED: A consequence of the bottom-up parallel-process of Merge and Attract. Proceedings of WCCFL 15: 505–519.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, J. 1999. Multiple spell-out. In Epstein, S. D. and Hornstein, N. (eds.), Working Minimalism, 251–282. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Valenzuela, P. 2003. Transitivity in Shipibo-Konibo Grammar. PhD dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene.Google Scholar
Van Koppen, M. 2005. One Probe – Two Goals: Aspects of Agreement in Dutch Dialects. PhD dissertation, Leiden University.Google Scholar
Vicente, L. 2010. On the syntax of adversative coordination. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28: 381–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, M. 2010. Prosody and recursion in coordinate structures and beyond. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28: 183–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walkow, M. 2014. When can you agree with a closest conjunct? Proceedings of WCCFL 31: 474–483.Google Scholar
Wechsler, S. 2008. “Elsewhere” in gender resolution. In Hanson, K. and Inkelas, S. (eds.), The Nature of the World: Studies in Honor of Paul Kiparsky, 567–586. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wechsler, S., and Zlatić, L.. 2003. The Many Faces of Agreement. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Wiklund, A.-L. 1996. Pseudocoordination is subordination. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 58: 29–54.Google Scholar
Wilkins, D. P. 1989. Mparntwe Arrernte (Aranda): Studies in the Structure and Semantics of Grammar. PhD dissertation, The Australian National University, Canberra.Google Scholar
Willer Gold, J., Arsenijević, B., Batinić, M., et al. 2017. When linearity prevails over hierarchy in syntax. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115: 495–500.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, E. S. 1977. Across-the-Board application of rules. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 419–423.Google Scholar
Winter, N. 2018. The syntax of coordinate structure complexes. Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 35: 438–447.Google Scholar
Wood, J., Sigurðsson, E. F., and Snorrason, O.. 2022. Case assignment and the linear order of coordinated verbs. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 107: 1–31.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, S. 2008. Nor: neither disjunction nor paradox. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 511–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yatabe, S. 2003. Does scrambling in Japanese obey the Coordinate Structure Constraint? In Nihon Gengogakkai Dai-126-kai Taikai Yokoo-shuu [Proceedings of the 126th Meeting of the Linguistic Society of Japan], 262–267. Kyoto: Linguistic Society of Japan.Google Scholar
Zaenen, A., and Karttunen, L.. 1984. Morphological non-distinctiveness and coordination. Proceedings of ESCOL 1: 309–320.Google Scholar
Zamparelli, R. 2011. Coordination. In von Heusinger, K., Maienborn, C., and Portner, P. (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, 1713–1741. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Zhang, N. N. 2006. On the configuration issue of coordination. Language and Linguistics 7: 175–223.Google Scholar
Zwart, J.-W. 2009a. Relevance of typology to minimalist inquiry. Lingua 119: 1589–1606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwart, J.-W. 2009b. Prospects for top-down derivation. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 8: 161–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.2 AAA
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The HTML of this chapter
complies with version 2.2 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), offering more comprehensive accessibility measures for a broad range
of users and attains the highest
(AAA)
level of WCAG compliance, optimising the user experience by meeting the most extensive
accessibility guidelines.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
Visualised data also available as non-graphical data
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.
Visual Accessibility
Use of high contrast between text and background colour
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.