On the relationship between clause combination, grammatical hierarchy and discourse-pragmatic coherence Clarence Green University of Melbourne e aim of this study is to explore the relationship between the forms of clause combination and their systematic patterns of explicit inter-clausal coher- ence. e study is conducted within the theoretical framework of the Adaptive Approach. e Adaptive Approach conceives of combined clauses as a hierarchy of conventionalized units for discourse coherence management. e grammati- cal properties of the different combined clauses determine their position on the hierarchy, and these properties are claimed to correlate with whether the con- struction is more, or less, of a cohesive unit for packaging multiple propositions. e study pursues the hypothesis that clauses higher on the hierarchy, being the more cohesive grammatical constructions, should tend to manage coherence between the propositions they combine (i.e. the clausal constituents) through fewer explicit discourse-pragmatic ties than the clauses considered less cohesive grammatical constructions. An analysis of cohesive ties in 450 combined clauses, representing 9 different English clause types, bears out these expectations. is is a significant result indicating that an inverse relationship exists between the level of grammatical integration and the frequency of inter-clausal cohesive ties. It is argued to be a quantifiable consequence of grammatical hierarchy, reflecting a continuum of coherence management from discourse to grammar. 1. Introduction Linguistic research has long been concerned with patterns of explicitly marked cohesion and the insights these patterns can provide into clause grammar. is has been true of almost every major theoretical position. In generative-orientated research, for example, an account has been developed of reflexive and pronominal anaphor patterns within a clause known as Binding eory (Chomsky 1981), and this has been a cornerstone of formal syntax since the late 1970’s. eorists such Functions of Language 21:3 (2014), 297–332. doi 10.1075/fol.21.3.02gre issn 0929–998X / e-issn 1569–9765 © John Benjamins Publishing Company