Construct · 3 fields · 5 citations

Where does conjunction collide?

One name. Different field. Different construct. One map.

● jingle · one word, three constructs Nearest construct by meaningsyntaxcompare the meanings
How to read this

Every construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to conjunction is syntax.

Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.

grammar joiner to logical ANDconjunction3 CONSTRUCTSConjunction (word)DIONYSIUS THRAX · JOINERLogical ANDBOOLE · AND CONNECTIVEConjunction fallacyT&K · CONJUNCTION FALLACY

Spokes are fields; dashed arcs are shared lineage. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.

2026

Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each field appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.

Linguistics

A function word that joins units

Named among the parts of speech by the Greek grammarian Dionysius Thrax (Téchnē grammatiké, ca. 100 BCE), a conjunction is a function word that joins other words, phrases, or clauses, such as and, but, or because. Huddleston and Pullum's Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (2002) sorts these joiners into coordinators, which link items of equal standing, and subordinators, which attach one clause to another. The referent is a class of linking word in a grammar, identified by how it connects units of a sentence, and it is not an alignment of stars, a truth-functional operator, or a mistake in reasoning about probability.[1][2]

Unit
One function word joining words, phrases, or clauses, classed as coordinating or subordinating
Recovery means
Not applicable
Measured by
Identified by its syntactic role in a sentence and grouped as a coordinator or a subordinator

Logic

The truth-functional AND connective

Given an algebraic form by George Boole's An Investigation of the Laws of Thought (1854) and set within a full logical system by Frege's Begriffsschrift (1879), conjunction is the connective that joins two statements into one that holds only when both of them hold, written and or with a symbol such as the wedge. Its whole behavior is fixed by a truth table: the compound is true in the single case where both parts are true, and false otherwise. The referent is an operation on truth values, defined by that rule alone, and it is distinct from a linking word in grammar, a meeting of bodies in the sky, or a habit of overrating combined events.[3][4]

Unit
One binary operation on two truth values, true only when both are true
Recovery means
Not applicable
Measured by
Given by a truth table, true only in the row where both inputs are true

Psychology

Overrating a joint event's probability

Identified by Tversky and Kahneman (1983) in Extensional versus intuitive reasoning, the conjunction fallacy is the tendency to judge a combination of two events as more probable than one of those events on its own, which the rules of probability never allow. In their well-known example, readers rated it more likely that a described woman was a bank teller and active in a feminist movement than that she was simply a bank teller. The referent is a measured error in how people reason about joint events, studied through probability ratings, and it differs from a joining word in grammar, a connective in formal logic, or an alignment of bodies in the sky.[5]

Unit
One judgment that a combined event is more probable than one of its own parts
Recovery means
Not applicable
Measured by
Detected when a rated probability of two events together exceeds the rated probability of one of them alone

Next

Run it through the Collider, or take the citations with you.

See how conjunction sits against neighbouring constructs in the Collider, or export every reference on this page in one click.

Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collision

Nearby collisions

negation4 fields · 4 citationsjingle · one word, four constructsinference3 fields · 5 citationsjingle · one word, three constructsrepresentativeness heuristic4 names · 5 citationsjangle · one heuristic, many errors

References

  1. Dionysius Thrax. (ca. 100 BCE). Téchnē grammatiké [The art of grammar].
  2. Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530
  3. Boole, G. (1854). An investigation of the laws of thought. Walton & Maberly.
  4. Frege, G. (1879). Begriffsschrift, eine der arithmetischen nachgebildete Formelsprache des reinen Denkens. Louis Nebert.
  5. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90(4), 293–315. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.90.4.293

Cited on this page?

Confirm your construct, or correct us.

If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.

Claim your construct