Because dependency analysis looks at both the propositional level of discourse, as well as the global level, it provides a finer-grained analysis than does the rhetorical analysis of Christensen and Christensen, and a more global analysis than does the generative-transformational grammar of Chomsky.

The rhetorical analysis of Christensen and Christensen demonstrates that within a sentence, logically coordinate elements are also grammatically parallel. However, when the analysis is applied to relations among sentences, it reveals that logically coordinate sentences are not always parallel in structure. For groups of sentences constituting paragraphs, grammatical parallelism among sentences is often superceded by logical parallelism. A sentence that is not logically parallel with the preceeding sentence is subordinate to it, although it may be coordinate with another sentence at a higher level in the outline. The following paragraphs demonstrate both the logical coordination and subordination among sentences, as well as the varying degrees of grammatical parallelism that may exist.

1. The circulatory system includes the blood circulation system and the lymph system.
         2. The blood circulation system includes the heart, the blood vessels, and the blood.
                  3. There are three kinds of blood vessels . . .
                           4. Arteries carry blood . . .
                                    5. They have relatively thick walls . . .
                           4. Capillaries are microscopic thin-walled vessels.
                                       5. The exchange of food, oxygen, and wastes . . .
                           4. The veins are those vessels which carry blood . . .

In this paragraph, the logical relations among the sentences is clear because it divides and then redivides the topic of the circulatory system. The second sentence specifies the three parts of the blood circulation system, and the three sentences on level four each name one of the three parts. The sentences on level five give additional information about each of these three parts. In this case, the logical parallelism of the level four sentences is reinforced by the grammatical parallelism. The three sentences are all simple sentences with the ordinary subject-verb word order, but the first has a transitive verb and the last two use linking verbs. Parallelism is present but not absolute.

1. [Vertebrae Have Characteristics.]
            2.The vertebrae of the spine are small . . .
            2.they have a part . . .
            2. [they] are subject . . .
                  3. It is not surprising . . .
                        4. Strenuous muscle action . . .
                        4. Sometimes a vertebra is broken . . .
                        4. Many spinal fractures result . . .
                        4. Neck fractures may occur . . .

The first sentence has been added to the outline to make the coordinate ideas more evident. This sentence states the organizing proposition and signals the divisional organization of the paragraph.

The next sentence is a compound sentence and states the characteristics of the spine. The first clause uses a linking verb; the second has a compound verb for the subject, "they." But to emphasize the logical parallelism of the list, the second verb is represented with "they" repeated, creating a third independent clause. The logical coordination of the ideas is emphasized by the analysis, but these ideas are not stated with absolute grammatical parallelism by the writer.

The sentence on the third level is an organizing sentence for the four coordinate sentences which follow, each indicating a way in which the vertebrae can be injured. These sentences are not grammatically parallel. The first begins with an expletive; the second has a transitive verb; the third is in passive voice; the fourth has an intransitive verb; and the last uses an intransitive verb. Nevertheless, because the function of each sentence is the same, providing information about a cause of injury, they are logically parallel in the outline.

1. Of all the systems yet devised for the control of large or small groups of organized bathers, the Buddy plan has proved to be the most effective.

            2.Essentially, it is merely a system [comprised of two things] . . .

                  3. of paring all bathers in the group according to their respective abilities and . . .

                  3. [of] making each member of the pair responsible for the whereabouts of the other . . .

                        4. If they are non-swimmers in shallow water, elementary swimmers or swimmers and divers, they always [do two things] . . .

                                          5. remain in close proximity to one another and . . .

                                          5. always enter and leave the water together.

                                                                  6. Thus, by the simple plan . . .

                                          5. Buddies are not responsible for the rescue. . .

                                          5. but they can always make know any danger

                                          5. and bring the supervisor or life guard . . . .

The first sentence is the topic sentence, explicitly presenting the buddy system as the subject of the paragraph and asserting its effectiveness. The second sentence defines the term and so is subordinate. The two components of the buddy system have been broken out and represented individually to emphasize the grammatical parallelism of coordinate ideas within the sentence.

In the third sentence, the pronoun "they" has its antecedent in "bathers" in the preceeding sentence, and so is subordinate to it and on the fourth level. Again, coordinate ideas within the sentence have been broken out to emphasize their grammatical parallelism.

The next sentence begins with a transitional expression "thus" indicating a conclusion to be drawn from the previous information. A conclusion is logically subordinate to the information it is based on, and the sentence is on the sixth level of the outline.

The last sentence expresses three distinct ideas about the duties of each partner in the buddy system, and with the addition of the pronoun "they" can be represented as three independent clauses. Because these ideas add further specific information about the functioning of the buddy system, they are logically coordinate with the duties specified by the phrases that have been broken out of third sentence.

1. When man creates simple ecosystems, he automatically creates ecological problems for himself.

            2.For instance, he often plants stands of a single grass --

                  3. wheat fields and corn fields are examples.

                        4. These lack the complexity necessary for stability. . . .

                                          5. and so [they] are subject to almost instant . . . .

                                          5. They are particularly vulnerable because. . . .

                                                                  6. these chemicals often don't . . . .

The first sentence is the topic sentence and so is designated as the superordinate. It is a complex sentence, and the subordinate clause could be broken out and given a level two designation, but for simplicity, I have treated it as a whole.

The second sentence begins with the transitional expression "For instance,' clearly signaling an example is to follow. Examples are always subordinate to the idea they illustrate, and so the second sentence is subordinate to the first. It is a compound sentence in which the first clause names a specific kind of simple ecosystem -- "stands of a single grass."

The second independent clause is even more specific, naming wheat and corn fields as examples of "stands of a single grass." This makes the second clause subordinate to the first.

The third sentence of the paragraph states why such simple ecosystems are a problem. A comment is subordinate to the idea it talks about. The subordinate position of this sentence is also indicated by the pronoun "these" which points back to the wheat and corn fields of the previous sentence.

The fourth sentence is also a comment about the wheat and corn fields and so is coordinate to the third sentence.

The parenthetical clause is treated as an independent sentence. The parenthesis makes it an embedded comment on the repellent effect of the anti-insect chemicals. This comment is subordinate to the idea in the preceding clause.

1. Other heavy metals are turning up as environmental hazards, notably mercury and cadmium.

            2.Both metals are very poisonous and . . .

            2. both enter the environment as industrial wastes.

                  3. The major source of mercury pollution is . . . .

                  3. Seed grain is often treated with mercury fungicides . . . .

                  3. Similar accidents have been reported in several countries . . . .

                  3. Other sources of mercury pollution are . . . .

The first sentence is the topic sentence. This paragraph has obviously been taken from a longer discussion of the environmental hazards of heavy metals. The words "Other heavy metals . . ." look back to what has preceeded, providing the transition.

The subordination of the second sentence is made clear by the word "both" which refers to mercury and cadmium. This is a compound sentence and I have broken it into its two independent clauses to emphasize the coordination. The first clauses characterizes the heavy metals as being "very poisonous" while the second tells how they get into the environment. The coordination might also be represented by introducing a dummy which would add one more level to the outline:

1. Both metals [have characteristics]

            2.Both metals are very poisonous and . . .

            2. both enter the environment as industrial wastes.

The third sentence is specific because it names a process that produces mercury as a polluting by-product. The specific example is subordinate to the general statement that precedes it.

The fourth sentence deals with seed grain and asks us to make the inference that the mercury fungicides used to treat seed grains constitute another example of industrial waste.

The fifth sentence is problematic. On the one hand, we might consider it as a comment on the preceding sentence which would make it subordinate, but on the other, we might see it as pointing to parallel examples which the writer does not care to specify. In the second case, the sentence could be represented as coordinate with the two preceding sentences, all of which refer to some example of how mercury enters the environment as an industrial waste. I have chosen the second option.

The last sentence lists "other sources of mercury pollution" and so is coordinate with the preceding sentences.

This is a simple but effective argumentative paragraph. The writer makes an assertion in the topic sentence and then provides ample support with examples in the sentences which follow.

1. The vast and varied beauty of flowers . . . has evolved . . . .

            2. Not all flowers are attractive by human standards, though.

                  3. Those of the grasses, for instance, . . . .

                        4. Grasses are pollinated by the wind:. . . .

                        4. they don't have to seduce birds or bees . . . .

                  3. And other plants have flowers perhaps better described . . . .

                        4. The blooms . . . of the milkweeds, for example, . . . .

                                          5. These flowers are pollinated by flies . . . .

As with the other examples of expository paragraphs, this one is organized deductively and gives the topic sentence first.

The second sentence must be subordinate to the first; otherwise, we would have a loss of coherence created by a change of subject. This fact is reinforced by the subordinating conjunction "though" indicating concession to the idea that flowers have a "vast and varied beauty." A concession constitutes a kind of comment, and comments are subordinate to the idea that they talk about.

The third sentence introduces an example, signaled by "for instance," and again, examples are subordinate to the ideas that they illustrate.

The fourth sentence is a compound sentence, and each independent clause talks about the pollination of grasses, making them with coordinate with each other and subordinate to sentence three.

The fifth sentence of the paragraph jumps back up to the third level of the outline. It is coordinate with the sentence that introduces grasses as an example of the kind of plants that do not use beautiful flowers for as a way of reproducing. It serves to introduce an example that is different from the grasses.

The sixth sentence names this example: "The blooms of the South African relatives of the milkweeds . . . ."

The final sentence is a comment on the preceding one, and so is subordinate to it.